Sunteți pe pagina 1din 259

RPS Aff 1

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Index
1AC Action
Index..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
This Page is Blank.........................................................................................................................................................................6
RPS 1AC – Contention 1...............................................................................................................................................................7
RPS 1AC – Plan............................................................................................................................................................................8
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.........................................................................................................................................................9
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................10
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................11
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................12
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................13
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................14
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................15
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................16
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................17
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................18
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................19
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................20
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................21
RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................22
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................23
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................24
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................25
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................26
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................27
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................28
RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................29
RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................30
RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................31
RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv..........................................................................................................................................32
RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv..........................................................................................................................................33
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................34
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................35
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................36
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................37
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................38
RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................39
Environment Ext – Coal Consumption Increasing......................................................................................................................40
Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use................................................................................................................................41
Environment Ext – Renewables Conserve Water........................................................................................................................42
Environment Ext – Conventional Energies Pollute Water..........................................................................................................43
Environment Ext – Fossil Fuel Production Destorys Environment............................................................................................44
Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Land Use.....................................................................................................................45
Environment Ext – Air Pollution – 2AC.....................................................................................................................................46
Environment Ext – Coal Casues Acid Rain.................................................................................................................................47
Environment Ext – SO2 and NOxAcid Rain...........................................................................................................................48
Environment Ext – Acid Rain Impacts........................................................................................................................................49
Environment Ext – RPS Solves Acid Rain..................................................................................................................................50
Environment Ext – Health Impact...............................................................................................................................................51
Environment Ext – Global Warming – 2AC................................................................................................................................52
Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................53
Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................54
Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................55
Environment Ext – Global Warming Solvency...........................................................................................................................56
Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Pollution & Greenhouse.............................................................................................57
Environment Ext – U.S. Environmental Leadership Solves Globally........................................................................................58
Economy Ext – RPS Reduces FF Transportation Costs..............................................................................................................59
Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link........................................................................................................................................60
RPS Aff 2
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link........................................................................................................................................61
Natural Gas Ext – Steel Industry Addon – 2AC..........................................................................................................................62
Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing............................................................................................................................................63
Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing............................................................................................................................................64
Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry..................................................................................................65
Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry..................................................................................................66
Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Food Impacts..................................................................................................................................67
Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Pakistan Impact..............................................................................................................................68
Natural Gas Ext – Renewables Reduce LNG Imports................................................................................................................69
Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices.............................................................................................................70
Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices.............................................................................................................71
Natural Gas Ext – RPS Solves Price Spikes / AE Helps Chemical Industry..............................................................................72
Natural Gas Ext – Alternative Energy Helps Chemical Industry................................................................................................73
Blackouts Ext – Investment in Transmission Needed.................................................................................................................74
Blackouts Ext – Utilities Intentionally Promote Congestion......................................................................................................75
Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now....................................................................................................................................76
Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now....................................................................................................................................77
Blackouts Ext – A2: Blackouts Don’t Happen............................................................................................................................78
Blackouts Ext – A2: 2005 Energy Act Fixed Problem................................................................................................................79
Blackouts Ext – Minor Failures Snowball...................................................................................................................................80
Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................81
Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................82
Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................83
Blackouts Ext – Renewables Solves............................................................................................................................................84
Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................85
Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................86
Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................87
Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now..................................................................................................................................88
Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now..................................................................................................................................89
Grid Security Ext – Impacts........................................................................................................................................................90
Grid Security Ext – Impacts........................................................................................................................................................91
Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................92
Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................93
Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................94
Grid Security Ext – A2: Wind Turbines Will be Attacked...........................................................................................................95
Unemployment Ext – Economy Internals...................................................................................................................................96
Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs...............................................................................................................................................97
Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs...............................................................................................................................................98
Unemployment Ext – RPS Increases Manufacturing..................................................................................................................99
Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs in Midwest / Rural Areas....................................................................................................100
Competitiveness Ext – RPS Will Boost Competitiveness.........................................................................................................101
Competitiveness Ext – RPS = Export Capabilities....................................................................................................................102
Competitiveness Ext – Increased Renewables Key to Exports Markets...................................................................................103
Competitiveness Ext – Solar Key to Tech Leadership..............................................................................................................104
Competitiveness Ext – RPS Key to Create Demand For RE....................................................................................................105
Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership........................................................................................106
Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership........................................................................................107
Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact..........................................................................................108
Competitiveness Ext – RE has Huge Market Potential.............................................................................................................109
Competitiveness Ext – U.S. Falling Behind / Small Threshold for Adv...................................................................................110
Competitiveness Ext – A2: Renewables Manufactured Abroad................................................................................................111
China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [1/2]...................................................................................................................112
China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [2/2]...................................................................................................................113
China Ext – Energy Consumption / Pollution Increasing..........................................................................................................114
China Ext – China Not Solving Now........................................................................................................................................115
China Ext – Death Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................116
China Ext – Agriculture Impact.................................................................................................................................................117
China Ext – Economy Impact....................................................................................................................................................118
China Ext – Economy Impact....................................................................................................................................................119
China Ext – Pollution Impacts...................................................................................................................................................120
RPS Aff 3
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
China Ext – Warming / Biodiversity Impacts............................................................................................................................121
China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency............................................................................................................................................122
China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency............................................................................................................................................123
China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations...................................................................................................................124
China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations...................................................................................................................125
Terrorism Ext – Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................................126
Terrorism Ext – Impacts............................................................................................................................................................127
Hegemony – Energy Policy Key to Global Leadership............................................................................................................128
Hegemony – Renewables / Market Key to Leadership.............................................................................................................129
Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg......................................................................................................130
Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg......................................................................................................131
No Renewables Now.................................................................................................................................................................132
No Renewables Now.................................................................................................................................................................133
State RPSs Undermines Renewables.........................................................................................................................................134
A2: States Solving Now............................................................................................................................................................135
A2: States Solving Now............................................................................................................................................................136
Federal RPS Good – Laundry List............................................................................................................................................137
Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................138
Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................139
Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................140
Renewables Good – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................................141
Renewables Good – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................................142
Federal RPS Good – National REC Market..............................................................................................................................143
Federal RPS Good – National REC Market..............................................................................................................................144
RECs = Transition to Renewables.............................................................................................................................................145
RECs = Transition to Renewables.............................................................................................................................................146
A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***....................................................................................................................................................147
A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***....................................................................................................................................................148
A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................149
A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................150
A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................151
A2: RPS Only Increases Wind Power.......................................................................................................................................152
A2: No Interconnection / A2: RPS Causes Electricity Restructuring.......................................................................................153
A2: Long Timeframe for Renewables.......................................................................................................................................154
A2: Meet Targets.......................................................................................................................................................................155
A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions ...................................................................................................................................156
A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions ...................................................................................................................................157
A2: Southeastern Region Can’t Meet RPS................................................................................................................................158
A2: No Enforcement..................................................................................................................................................................159
A2: No Enforcement / Coordination with State RECs..............................................................................................................160
A2: No Materials for Renewables.............................................................................................................................................161
Wind Solves Pollution / CO2....................................................................................................................................................162
Wind Solves Pollution / CO2....................................................................................................................................................163
Wind Helps Environment..........................................................................................................................................................164
Wind Key to Competitiveness...................................................................................................................................................165
Wind Increases Jobs..................................................................................................................................................................166
Wind Solves Rural Economy....................................................................................................................................................167
Wind Increases Tourism ...........................................................................................................................................................168
Wind Can Meet All Energy Needs............................................................................................................................................169
Wind Has Larget Potential in Electiricty Market......................................................................................................................170
Wind Solves Natural Gas Price Shocks.....................................................................................................................................171
Wind Solves Terrorist Attacks...................................................................................................................................................172
Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................173
Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................174
Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................175
A2: Wind Kills Birds.................................................................................................................................................................176
A2: Wind Kills Bats...................................................................................................................................................................177
A2: Wind Kills Animals ...........................................................................................................................................................178
A2: Wind Hurts Soil / Environment / Causes Emissions..........................................................................................................179
A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................180
RPS Aff 4
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................181
A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................182
A2: Wind is Expensive..............................................................................................................................................................183
A2: Wind Still Needs to Be Backed Up....................................................................................................................................184
Wind Power Popular With Public..............................................................................................................................................185
Bush Supports Wind Power.......................................................................................................................................................186
A2: States CP – Permutation.....................................................................................................................................................187
A2: States CP – Empowers / Gives States Flexibility...............................................................................................................188
A2: States CP – States More Expensive....................................................................................................................................189
A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................190
A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................191
A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................192
A2: States CP – Industry Wants Federal RPS............................................................................................................................193
A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost.........................................................................................................................................194
A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost.........................................................................................................................................195
A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC......................................................................................................................................196
A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC......................................................................................................................................197
A2: States CP – Federal Key to Clarify Renewables................................................................................................................198
A2: States CP – Natural Gas Prices...........................................................................................................................................199
A2: States CP – Can’t Solve Environmental Leadership..........................................................................................................200
A2: States CP – Uniformity Answers........................................................................................................................................201
A2: States CP – No Federal Modeling......................................................................................................................................202
A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 2AC...............................................................................................................................................203
A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 1AR...............................................................................................................................................204
A2: States CP – Lawsuits Will Collapse Energy Policy ...........................................................................................................205
A2: States CP – Implemenation = Dormant Commerce Clause Problems................................................................................206
A2: States CP – Texas & Pennsylvania Face Constitutional Challenge....................................................................................207
A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable..............................................................................................................208
A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable..............................................................................................................209
A2: States CP – Litigation Risk Discourages Investment.........................................................................................................210
A2: States CP – Can’t Fiat Out of Commerce Clause Argument..............................................................................................211
A2: States CP – A2: In-State Consumption Avoids Legal Challenge.......................................................................................212
A2: States CP – National RPS Prevents Lawsuits.....................................................................................................................213
A2: Any PIC..............................................................................................................................................................................214
A2: CPs that Stipulate Additional Regulations.........................................................................................................................215
A2: Exclude “X” Power Plant CP.............................................................................................................................................216
A2: Exclude “X” State Counterplan..........................................................................................................................................217
A2: Safety Valve CP..................................................................................................................................................................218
A2: CP to Favor One Type of a Renewable...............................................................................................................................219
A2: Expand Beyond 20% CP....................................................................................................................................................220
A2: Smaller Percentage (15%, etc) CPs....................................................................................................................................221
A2: Smaller Percentage (15%, etc) CPs....................................................................................................................................222
A2: Include Clean Coal / Energy Efficiency in RPS.................................................................................................................223
A2: Include Nuclear or Clean Coal Technology in RPS...........................................................................................................224
A2: CPs to Expand Renewables................................................................................................................................................225
A2: Energy Efficiency or Transportation CPs...........................................................................................................................226
A2: Cap-and-Trade CP..............................................................................................................................................................227
A2: Cap-and-Trade CP / A2: Carbon Tax CP............................................................................................................................228
A2: Production Tax Credit CP...................................................................................................................................................229
A2: Production Tax Credit CP – Unpopular in Congress..........................................................................................................230
A2: Production Tax Credit CP – Unpopular in Congress..........................................................................................................231
A2: Free Market CP / Coercion.................................................................................................................................................232
A2: Free Market CP / Coercion.................................................................................................................................................233
A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................234
A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................235
A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................236
A2: Nuclear Power CP..............................................................................................................................................................237
A2: Nuclear Power CP..............................................................................................................................................................238
A2: Nuclear Power CP – Permutation Evidence.......................................................................................................................239
A2: Clean Coal CP....................................................................................................................................................................240
RPS Aff 5
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
A2: Clean Coal CP....................................................................................................................................................................241
A2: Coal DA ***.......................................................................................................................................................................242
A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................243
A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................244
A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................245
A2: Nuclear Power DA .............................................................................................................................................................246
A2: Nuclear Power DA.............................................................................................................................................................247
A2: Energy Prices DA...............................................................................................................................................................248
A2: Energy Prices DA...............................................................................................................................................................249
A2: Federalism DA...................................................................................................................................................................250
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................251
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................252
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................253
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................254
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................255
A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................256
A2: Kritiks.................................................................................................................................................................................257
A2: Kritiks.................................................................................................................................................................................258
A2: Topicality – RPS is an Incentive ........................................................................................................................................259
RPS Aff 6
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

This Page is Blank


RPS Aff 7
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Contention 1


Contention 1 is the Status Quo

Individuals States are adopting renewable portfolio standards – creating an uncertain regulatory environment for
investors and fueling market distortions. Only a federal RPS can create a diverse, predictable and stable national
renewable market

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

State-based renewable portfolio standards (RPS) create regulatory uncertainty for investors and inherent inequities among
ratepayers. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, diverse and predictable national market for renewable
resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices.
"There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we're one country and have national needs. And the way I
know this is that Florida did not fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights." - (the fictional) President Josiah
Bartlett, The West Wing
Arguably, we face no greater national priority than crafting a coherent national energy strategy. Americans face energy
challenges over the next several decades - growing dependence on foreign sources of fuel, continued exposure to the threat of
terrorist sabotage,1 increasing vulnerability to impending climate change, and environmental threats - that demand
progressive federal leadership. Yet federal legislation to establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) has failed no
less than 17 times in the past 10 years.
While supporting state-based RPS efforts, the Bush Administration has officially opposed a national RPS on the grounds that
it would create "winners" and "losers" among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable
resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.2 In the meantime, 21 states (and the District of Columbia) have adopted
their own RPS mandates, and eight others - Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and
Virginia - are considering some form of RPS.
With so much state-level action, one might be tempted to agree with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) that "activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS."3 But looks can be deceiving. Because
the accumulated demand for electricity is expected to accelerate over the next several decades, the penetration of renewable
energy technologies in individual states, while noteworthy, is not likely to substantially alter the national fuel mix nor
materially address the energy risks we all face.
Framing the debate as a choice between a perfectly functioning, undistorted energy market and a clunky, artificial federal
intervention, opponents of a national RPS tend to ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-based
mandates.4 Indeed, the most compelling argument for federal action is that a national RPS may help correct many of the
market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions. Not only does reliance on state-based action
make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in
some states that are paying for "free riders" in others. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, more diverse
and more predictable national market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. A
national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.
RPS Aff 8
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Plan


Plan #1

The Unites States federal government should require that retail power providers meet at least 20 percent of electricity
demand with renewable energy by 2020 and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal.

Plan #2

The Unites States federal government should require that by 2020 regulated utilities meet 20 percent of net electricity
demand from electricity generated by qualified renewable sources (generators harnessing electricity from sunlight,
wind, falling water, sustainable biomass, waste, and geothermal sources) and establish renewable energy credits to
facilitate this goal.
RPS Aff 9
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv


Contention _____ is Conventional Energy

Conventional energy sources results in thousands of systemic deaths – outweighs the one-shot risk of their disad

Dr. Sovacool, 8 – Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA
(Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
“The Costs of Major Energy Accidents, 1907 to 2007,” 4-29-2008,
www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/04/The-Costs-of-Major-Energy-Accidents-1907-to-2007/) // JMP

Conventional energy technologies-- namely nuclear, coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric power generators-- may kill more people
than you think.
From 1907 to 2007, a new study finds that 279 major energy accidents in the coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear
sectors have been responsible for $41 billion in damages and 182,156 deaths.
The claim that humans are imperfect needs no further citation. It is unsurprising, then, that major energy accidents occur. But what counts as an energy
“accident,” especially a “major” one?
The study attempted to answer this question by searching historical archives, newspaper and magazine articles, and press wire reports from 1907 to 2007.
The words “energy,” “electricity,” “oil,” “coal,” “natural gas,” “nuclear,” “renewable,” and “hydroelectric” were searched in the same sentence as the words
“accident,” “disaster,” “incident,” “failure,” “meltdown,” “explosion,” “spill,” and “leak.” The study then narrowed results according to five criteria:
The accident must have involved an energy system at the production/generation, transmission, and distribution phase. This means it must have occurred at an
oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, or hydroelectric plant, its associated infrastructure, or within its fuel cycle (mine, refinery, pipeline, enrichment
facility, etc.);
It must have resulted in at least one death or property damage above $50,000 (in constant dollars that has not been normalized for growth in capital stock);
It had to be unintentional and in the civilian sector, meaning that military accidents and events during war and conflict are not covered, nor are intentional
attacks. The study only counted documented cases of accident and failure;
It had to occur between August, 1907 and August, 2007;
It had to be verified by a published source;
The study adjusted all damages—including destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and
court claims—to 2006 U.S. dollars using the Statistical Abstracts of the United States.
Unsurprisingly, the data concerning major energy accidents is inhomogeneous. While responsible for less than 1 percent of total energy accidents,
hydroelectric facilities claimed 94 percent of reported fatalities. Looking at the gathered data, the total results on fatalities are highly dominated one accident
in which the Shimantan Dam failed in 1975 and 171,000 people perished.
Only three of the listed 279 accidents resulted in more than 1,000 deaths, and each of these varied in almost every aspect. One involved the structural failure
of a dam more than 30 years ago in China; one involved a nuclear meltdown in the Ukraine two decades ago; and one involved the rupture of a petroleum
pipeline in Nigeria around ten years ago.
The study found that only a small amount of accidents caused property damages greater than $1 billion, with most accidents below the $100 million mark.
The second largest source of fatalities, nuclear reactors, is also the second most capital intense, supporting the notion that the larger a facility the more grave
(albeit rare) the consequences of its failure. The inverse seems true for oil, natural gas, and coal systems: they fail far more frequently, but have
comparatively fewer deaths and damage per each instance of failure.
While hydroelectric plants were responsible for the most fatalities, nuclear plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all
property damage. Oil and hydroelectric come next at around 25 percent each, followed by natural gas at 9 percent and coal at 2 percent.
By energy source, the most frequent energy system to fail is natural gas, followed by oil, nuclear, coal, and then hydroelectric. Ninety-one accidents occurred
at natural gas facilities, accounting for 33 percent of the total; oil, 71 accidents at 25 percent; nuclear, 63 accidents at 23 percent; coal, 51 accidents at 18
percent; hydroelectric, 3 accidents at 1 percent.
Therefore, energy accidents exact a significant toll on human health and welfare, the natural environment, and society. Such
accidents are now part of our daily routines, a somewhat intractable feature of our energy-intensive lifestyles. They are an often-ignored negative externality
associated with energy conversion and use. This conclusion may seem quite banal to some, given how fully integrated energy technologies are into modern
society. Yet energy systems continue to fail despite drastic improvements in design, construction, operation, and maintenance,
as well as the best of intentions among policymakers and operators.
Perhaps one striking difference between energy accidents and other “normal” risks facing society concerns the involuntary
aspects of energy accidents. Alcoholics, rock climbers, construction workers, soldiers, and gigolos all take a somewhat active and voluntary role in
their risky behavior. Those suffering from nuclear meltdowns, exploding gas clouds, and petroleum-contaminated water do not.
The death and destruction associated with large-scale energy technologies is significant. Tallied as a whole, the 182,156
energy-related deaths total more than twice the number that died in the Vietnam War. Indeed, if averaged out for each year,
energy technologies have been responsible for the equivalent of a September 11, 2001 happening every 1.65 years, year after
year.
The fact that such deaths are systemic means that they can be predicted to occur, with certainty, well into the future. Therein
also lies hope, for recurring events can be anticipated and responded to. Their “high probability” means that they can be more
easily predicted, planned for, and minimized than unforeseen and catastrophic events.
RPS Aff 10
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv


In particular, a federal RPS is key to prevent water shortages and thermal pollution that will collapse ecosystems

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

B. Water Conservation
If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for
farming. Perhaps the
most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that
is extremely water-intensive. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day.244 In 2006, they accounted
for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for
irrigated agriculture in the entire United States.245
A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17
Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much
as 9,913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power
plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal
plants also use water to clean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss.
Newer technologies, while they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling
technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to
the original source. Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s
water scarcity.248
Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial
amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River, but
actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes,.249
With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, continuing
to rely on fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators
could spark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030,
to 7.3 billion gallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in
1995.250
Water Shortages
The electric utility industry’s vast appetite for water has serious consequences, both for human consumption and the environment.
Assuming the latest Census Bureau projections, the U.S. population is expected to grow by about 70 million people in the next 25 years.251 Such population growth is already
threatening to overwhelm existing supplies of fresh and potable water.
Few new reservoirs have been built since 1980 and some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years as aquifers extract water
faster than the natural rate of replenishment.252 Most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years, according to a recent survey,
even under “normal” conditions.253 In fact, 47 states in the country reported drought conditions during the summer of 2002.254
Water shortages risk becoming more acute in the coming years as climate change alters precipitation patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, global warming is expected
to induce a dramatic loss of snow-pack as more precipitation falls as rain. As a result, numerous studies have suggested that the hydrology of the region will be fundamentally
altered with increased flood risks in the spring and reductions of snow in the winter. 255 Consequently, power retailers in the region have expressed concern that large
hydroelectric and nuclear facilities will have to be shut down due to lack of adequate water for electricity generation and cooling.256 During the steamy August of 2006, the record
heat sparked unplanned reactor shutdowns in Michigan and Minnesota as nuclear plant operators scrambled to find enough water to cool radioactive fuel cores.257
Thermal Pollution
The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how
power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day for
cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “once-through” cooling
presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the
surrounding surface waters.259 Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of
cooling towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments.
In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer
temperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Rather than
improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over
others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse
entire ecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking
water treatment.260 // pg. 97-100
RPS Aff 11
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv


This causes extinction

Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND **
Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The
New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-
dying)
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one,
We are relentlessly taking over the
however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens.
planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass
extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could
lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever
recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay.
To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is
that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three
million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast
majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means
that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably.
But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all
the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild.
And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major
greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of
Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction.
Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the
forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully
jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real
possibility.
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal,
nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both
intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in
North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these
with increased pollution and runoff, as
developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,
well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster.
In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and
warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans
depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest
coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human
populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per
year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if
ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.
Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent
discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just
this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and
hirudin (another anticoagulant).
Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More
than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful
anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends.
Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction
rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years.
Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in
Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of
biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking
around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else,
apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul.
But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are
creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste
accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must
accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain,
scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when
humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the
greatest dying of them all.
RPS Aff 12
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv


RPS will displace natural gas and coal facilities – preventing environmental harms

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & Land


A. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has already determined that that “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation
from natural gas and coal facilities.”236 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding. The New York
State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), for example, looked at load profiles for 2001 and concluded that 65 percent of the energy displaced by wind
turbines in New York would have otherwise come from natural gas facilities, 15 percent from coal-fired plants, 10 percent from oil-based generation, and 10 percent from out of
state imports of electricity.237 A
more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would
otherwise be generated with a mix of 87 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil.238 In Texas, the Union of Concerned
Scientists also confirmed that renewable energy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities.239
Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined
that a statewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear
reactors.240 In Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every 50 MW of renewable energy
would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would displace the
need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy
systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and
social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. // pg. 97
RPS Aff 13
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Contention _____ is the Economy

The impact is global global nuclear war

Mead, 92 – Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations


(Walter Russel, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer 1992, p. 28.)

But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with theirbillions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

We will isolate several internal links to this

First is pollution – particulate matter from power plants kills tens of thousands and has a devastating impact on the
U.S. economy

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Particulate Matter (PM)


Particulate matter is not a specific pollutant itself, but instead refers to a mixture of fine particles of harmful pollutants such
as soot, acid droplets, and metals. Particulate matter (PM) is the generic term for the mixture of these microscopic solid
particles and liquid droplets in the air. Because its make-up is often complex, PM is by far the most difficult pollutant to
detect and monitor.
Roughly half of the nation’s 250,000 tons of PM emissions come indirectly from the NOx and Sox emitted from power
plants, which react in the atmosphere to form dangerous PM particles.291 When both these primary and secondary conditions
are included in estimates, individual power plants release between 100 and 400 tons of PM every year.292
Inhalation of PM is strongly associated with heart disease and chronic lung disease. 293 Since microscopic solids or liquid
droplets are so small, they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Numerous scientific studies have
linked PM exposure to:
• Irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing
• Decreased lung function
• Aggravated asthma
• Development of chronic bronchitis
• Irregular heartbeat
• Nonfatal heart attacks
• Premature death in people with heart or lung disease.294
Roughly 80 million Americans live in areas where PM emissions are considered dangerous.295
Particulate matter emissions from power plants alone are responsible for more than 23,000 premature deaths each year …as
well as nearly 22,000 hospital admissions, more than a half-million asthma attacks (resulting in 26,000 hospital emergency
room visits), more than 38,000 heart attacks, and over16,000 cases of chronic bronchitis.296 These health affects have a
devastating impact on the U.S. economy and are estimated to have cost the U.S. workforce over three million lost
work days.297 // pg. 111-112
RPS Aff 14
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Second is Natural Gas

The electricity sector demand for natural gas is increasing – making future price spikes inevitable

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Natural Gas Prices Will Increase


“There is a risk in investment in nuclear and coal. Coal has got the carbon unknown mostly in terms of draconian impositions by the Feds. Nuclear has got safety and liability
concerns. So I think people will still go gas because they have less money invested in it, with the idea they can pass it on to retail customers, particularly in market-oriented areas.”
- Respondent #15, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006
Many of the electricity generating units used for intermediate and “peaking” purposes (for example, to meet increased demand for air
conditioning on hot, summer days) use natural gas for fuel. This is because natural gas generating units usually require a lower capital investment than nuclear or coal-
fired plants, have shorter construction and lead-times, and tend to produce lower emissions than coal plants. Natural gas-fired units also can be turned on or off quickly,
giving them operational flexibility to meet short-term peak electricity demands.
The electricity sector’s demand for natural gas has increased from 24 percent of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005.59 And
consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for two reasons:
Lower Reserve Margins
First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels. By 2005, reserve margins across
the contiguous United States had dropped to 15 percent and, in some large states (like Texas and Florida), as low as 9 percent. Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased
electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas-fired generating units. And plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and
Florida rely overwhelmingly on natural gas.60
Prospects for New Sources
Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of natural gas.
Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and has hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is
currently off-limits.61 Whether new drilling rights are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units
are safer investments than they really are.
Future Carbon Controls
Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, more generators
will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.62
Roger Garrett, Director of Puget Sound Energy’s Resource Acquisition Group, for example, recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number
of new natural-gas fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.63
In its most recent energy outlook (AEO 2007), EIA projects natural gas wellhead prices to average $5.06 per million cubic feet (2002$) from 2007 to 2030. If there are delays in
the construction of the nearly 45,000 miles of new gas pipelines that industry analysts say are required to ensure adequate supply, the base-case price grows to $6.43 per million
cubic feet.64 Since 1997, however, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had to increase its projections for natural gas prices each year to
conform to new data showing that the price was higher than expected.65 The year 2007 was no exception. In its report on short-term energy and summer 2007 fuels outlook, the
DOE said it expected natural gas prices over the summer season to be 18 percent above its predictions a year earlier.66
While natural gas has enjoyed a recent period of depressed prices, substantial long-term price increases are virtually
inevitable.
Recent evidence suggests that EIA’s long-term projections – as in its short-term forecasts – make optimistic assumptions about growth in domestic natural gas production. In
October 2006, for example, Chesapeake Energy stunned the gas industry by announcing that it would shut off 100,000 cubic feet per day of unhedged gas production until natural
gas prices rebounded. A week later, Questar Exploration & Production curtailed its output for the same reason.67 These unusual moves repudiated government (and industry)
optimism about domestic natural gas output and reminded analysts that the gas market can be far more volatile and easily manipulated than forecasts predict.
As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
predicted continued strain in the long-term market for natural gas:
Today’s tight natural gas markets have been a long time in coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt to return to
earlier periods of relative abundance and low prices anytime soon.68 // pg. 38-40
RPS Aff 15
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


These natural gas price shocks are increasing electricity rates and devastating the U.S. economy

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America:
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Rising Natural Gas Costs Will Increase Electricity Rates


Short-term deflation in natural gas prices obfuscates the costs associated with natural gas price volatility. In hearings before the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2003, the CEO of one large chemical
company told Congress, “the recent history of natural gas prices is a study in commodity price volatility.”69 For example, the price of natural gas jumped from $6.20 per million BTUs (MMBtu) in 1998 to
$14.50 per MMBtu in 2001, then dropped precipitously for almost a year and then rebounded steadily from around $2.10 per MMBtu in 2002 to more than $14.00 per MMBtu near the end of 2005.70
The enormous price spikes for natural gas seen over
When natural gas prices swing wildly, utilities find it difficult to plan prudent investments or contract for bulk supplies.
the last few years have made natural-gas fired plants uneconomic to operate, and have resulted in significant increases in
electricity prices in several areas, much to the consternation of utility executives.72
From April through June of 2006, Platts conducted surveys of utility executives to analyze perceptions of important issues facing the electricity industry and to identify issues that may cause concern in the
future.Natural gas supply shocks were mentioned repeatedly as a justification for significant rate increases:
The issue for utility executives is how best to deal with the increases and volatility in natural gas prices. The added costs to produce electricity or provide natural gas cannot be absorbed by local distribution
companies (LDCs) and many are facing the need to file for rate relief and pass those costs through to end-users. The added issue for many is timing. Rising natural gas prices are occurring simultaneously with
the end of rate caps, causing end-users to potentially see rate increases of more than 70 percent in some regions. Managing these rate shocks and the backlash, which is often directed towards deregulation, is a
serious issue.73
Indeed, in fall of 2006 ratepayers in Illinois waged a modern-day version of the Boston Tea Party, sending teabags to the state’s utilities in protest of projected rate increases of 22 percent to 55 percent in 2007.
In Boston, homeowners and small businesses have seen electricity prices rise by 78 percent since 2002, from 6.4 cents a kilowatt hour to 11.4 cents a kilowatt hour.74
Across the U.S., average retail electricity prices rose by 9.2 percent in 2006 alone, a trend likely to continue for the next
several years.75
Natural-gas induced price spikes have been devastating to the U.S. economy. Because natural gas accounts for nearly 90
percent of the cost of fertilizer, escalating natural gas prices in 2005 created significant economic hardships for U.S. farmers.
As well, some manufacturing and industrial consumers that relied heavily on natural gas moved their facilities overseas. The
U.S. petrochemical industry, for example, relies on natural gas as a primary feedstock as well as for fuel. On February 17, 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported that the petrochemical sector had lost
approximately 78,000 jobs to foreign plants where natural gas was much cheaper.76 // pg. 40-42
RPS Aff 16
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Also, high gas prices will destroy overall U.S. manufacturing – this will crush the economy, and specifically destroy
the chemical and fertilizer industries

Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES
FORTNIGHTLY, “The Case Against Gas Dependence”, April, lexis)

Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the problem. Robert
Linden noted that high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would, in part, counterbalance
increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This price-induced demand destruction can be added to the other causes of reduced
gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting
that high natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants
continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19
Both authors are correct in pointing out that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper future
natural gas price increases. However, the "destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States;
it is not a "solution" to the natural-gas pricing problem. We
should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices
are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy.
Despite all of the hype in recent years about the new economy, the information economy, the service economy, etc., manufacturing is, by far, the most critical
sector of the U.S. economy, and it creates the broad foundation upon which the rest of the economy grows. n20 Manufacturing
drives the rest of the economy, provides a disproportionate share of the nation's tax base, generates innovation, and
disseminates new technology throughout the economy. The average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs directly and indirectly throughout the economy,
whereas the average service and retail job generates about one other job, directly and indirectly.
The manufacturing sector uses 40 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States, and virtually every manufacturing
industry is heavily dependent on natural gas as a fuel, feedstock, and, increasingly, as a source of electricity generation. Price
spikes in the cost of natural gas and electricity in the fall of 2000 precipitated the current manufacturing recession. During the past
three years, this sector has been severely affected, losing more than 2.5 million jobs. n21 The current manufacturing recovery is slower than the first year of any recovery in 40
years. n22 Manufacturing is suffering from intense global competition and cannot pass though increased energy costs via
product price increases.
Reliance on low-cost natural gas has been an often-unrecognized factor in the U.S. manufacturing sector's global
competitiveness, and an ample supply of reasonably priced natural gas is critical to its competitiveness. This sector is bearing the brunt
of the energy impacts of the natural gas crisis and is suffering from a triple whammy: High natural gas prices are causing industrial electricity prices to
increase, the cost of natural gas as a feedstock and fuel is greatly increasing manufacturing costs, and industrial operations
are the first to be cut off from natural gas supplies when winter emergencies occur. The natural gas crisis has become a matter of exporting
profits and jobs to countries with cheaper natural gas.
Thus, the impact of high natural gas prices is, indeed, to destroy the U.S. industrial sector. However, instead of viewing this as an effect that will serve to moderate future natural
gas price increases, this must be viewed as a very serious problem resulting from high natural gas prices. To the extent natural gas demand and prices are being driven by the
increasing use of gas for electric power generation, the solution should be to substitute other fuels, such as nuclear and coal in this sector, and not to accept demand destruction in
the nation's industrial sector.
The case against natural gas for electricity generation is quite clear. Specifically:
. The use of gas for electricity generation is forecast to more than double by 2025, and, according to both EIA and industry analysts, this demand increase may not be achievable.
Natural gas imports are forecast to increase dramatically over the next two decades and, at a time when we are concerned about the nation's increasing dependence on imported oil,
America is becoming increasingly dependent on imported natural gas from the same politically unstable regions that contain most of the world's oil supplies.
. The increasing use of gas for electric power generation is placing strains on natural gas supplies and the gas transmission and distribution infrastructure, and this will further
hinder the provision of adequate gas supplies.
. This increasing use is causing the price of natural gas to increase and to become more volatile. Increased prices and price
volatility are having adverse consequences for natural gas consumers and are resulting in market disruptions. Gas price volatility will
likely increase in the future, thus causing further market disruptions
. Natural gas shortages and price volatility can have adverse economic and employment effects, and they can increase U.S. dependence on imported oil.
. High natural gas prices are having a devastating impact on U.S. manufacturing industries, and this should be viewed as the most serious effect of the current (and future) gas
crisis.

The chemical industry is a keystone industry in the U.S. economy – critical to global competitiveness

The Technology Administration 7 ("The Chemical Industry: Executive Summary",


Unknown date in 07, http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm) AMK
The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy. It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It is the nation's number
one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runs large international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development
(R&D) oriented industry that is awarded about one out of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S.
manufacturing average, and it produces over 70,000 different products.
Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- one critical to the global competitiveness of other U.S. industries. Because
so many modern products depend on chemicals, the international competitiveness of other U.S. industries requires a high-
tech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that can supply new products at prices that give U.S. producers an edge.
RPS Aff 17
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Independently, the chemical industry is key to solving everything from disease to environmental collapse – prevents
extinction

Baum 99 – editor-in-chief of the American Chemical Society's Chemical and Engineering News [Rudy M. Baum, C&E
News, “Millennium Special Report,” 12-6-99, http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html] // LDK

The pace of change in today's world is truly incomprehensible. Science


is advancing on all fronts, particularly chemistry and biology working
together as they never have before to understand life in general and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace.
Technology ranging from computers and the Internet to medical devices to genetic engineering to nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in it. It is, in fact, a
fool's mission to predict where science and technology will take us in the coming decade, let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know.
We do know, however, that we face enormous challenges, we 6 billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision of world population estimates and
projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in 2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a "medium-fertility projection,"
considered the most likely, indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050. According to the UN, fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per
woman in the early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in all regions of the world. That's good news.
But people are living a lot longer. That is certainly good news for the individuals who are living longer, but it also poses challenges for health care and social services the world
over. The 1998 UN report estimates for the first time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling.
In 1998, 66 million people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is expected to increase sixfold by 2050 to reach 370 million people, or one in every
24 persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older!
Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed
and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of
the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living
for the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of
civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans
Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions
made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong.
While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among
the technological optimists either. There are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our
Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial
and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not
obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to
where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where
we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise—
will play central roles in addressing these challenges. The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide
variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the
contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st
century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry
to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital
contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production.
Although it is not well known to the general public, the
chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from
production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the
environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William
S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and
environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar
energy to drive growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But sustainability is
more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in
Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its
Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near Richmond, Va.
embrace of life sciences. Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While it had
always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped precisely, altered, stitched back
together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques began the transformation of DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are
likely to be felt well into the next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists and biologists use to
understand life at the molecular level. It
provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals and new approaches to treat disease. It expands
enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by numerous chemical companies. There is
no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding the world's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second
essay, Editor-at-Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and corporate
control over food.
RPS Aff 18
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Also, importing liquefied natural gas risks a terrorist attack that would have the force of a nuclear explosion

Providence Journal 4 (Mark Reynolds, staffwriter, “Lloyd's executive likens LNG attack to nuclear explosion” 9-21-2004,
www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040921_ma21lng.134600.html) AMK

A terrorist attack on an LNG tanker "would have the force of a small nuclear explosion," according to the chairman of
Lloyd's, a British insurer of natural gas port facilities like the ones being proposed in Fall River and Providence.
The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to
business leaders in Houston.
Levene described Texas as a "state at risk" and said that securing its remote oil facilities is a "particular challenge."
"Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on
an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."
Levene did not name the specialists in his remarks, although a text of his speech contains a footnote. The footnote attributes
the observation to the author of an article posted, in an abbreviated form, on the Web site of Jane's Terrorism and Security
Monitor in July. The same abstract, apparently authored by the same person, Dr. J.C.K. Daly, was also posted on the Internet
weblog Talk Show American.
Levene also did not specify Texas LNG port facilities and tanker ships that might be at risk.
Records kept by federal regulators show that several LNG port facilities have been proposed in Texas. They do not show any
existing facilities.
Levene's company, Lloyd's, is the world's second-largest commercial insurer.
The chairman could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Some critics of the proposal in Fall River have spoken in apocalyptic terms of potential LNG disasters.
But to date, no official reports by government regulators have made comparisons between the various LNG catastrophes that
experts have hypothesized and destruction from an atomic bomb.
One report does describe hypothetical fires that might erupt if gas leaks from a tanker in its liquid form changes into a
gaseous form and ignites when it comes into contact with a flame.
In one instance, the blaze, in less than a minute, would be capable of inflicting third-degree burns a little less than a mile
away.

Expanding renewables solves – provides a hedge against natural gas price volatility and reduces harmful LNG
imports

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK

In response to high gas prices, and the declining productivity of North American gas wells, EIA projects imports of liquefied
natural gas (LNG) to increase more than seven-fold over the next 20 years.26 This trend threatens to push the U.S. down the
same troubled road of rising dependence on imported gas that has been followed for oil. By reducing the demand for natural
gas, renewable energy can reduce imports.
Lacking long fuel supply chains, renewable energy facilities are also not vulnerable to supply shortages or disruptions, price
spikes, price increases, or price manipulation. And because they do not use volatile fuel or produce dangerous wastes,
renewable energy facilities (except large hydropower dams) do not present inviting targets for sabotage or attack.
B. Reduced exposure to natural gas price risk
Typically, contracts for natural gas generation are variably priced, which leaves utilities and their customers exposed to
periods of price volatility such as that which has plagued the U.S. gas industry since 2000. By contrast, generation from
renewable energy systems is normally sold under fixed-price contracts. Increasing the amount of renewable energy included
in a utilities’ energy portfolio can provide an important hedge against this gas price risk.
RPS Aff 19
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Third is Blackouts

The archaic transmission grid will inevitably breakdown – causing blackouts that grind the economy to a halt

Reuters, ‘7 (Timothy Gardner, “Business Books: Strain on U.S. grid to make blackouts common,” 7-16-2007,
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0718520720070616?pageNumber=2&sp=true)

Most people in the United States only think about where electricity comes from when the lights go out suddenly.
But unless the antiquated transmission grid is fixed, expensive blackouts that bring modern life to a grinding halt will become
ever more common, according to "Lights Out" (Wiley, $27.95), a new book by Jason Makansi.
Before the 1980s, power generating companies were responsible for the entire chain of supply, from securing fuel to
transmitting power to homes. Deregulation, meant to increase competition, has busted that chain apart and left the wires and
substations that deliver electricity as a "neglected stepchild," Makansi writes.
As demand for electricity rises, especially in the hot summer months when air conditioners are humming, the result is an
overstretched grid, exploding transformers, brownouts and blackouts.
Transmission only accounts for about 10 percent of the industry's assets, and for decades utilities and regulators have focused
on more expensive parts of the system. Now, even electricity generated in ultramodern plants is dependent on the brittle
transmission grid. "Imagine driving a Maserati over a road littered with potholes," Makansi writes.

Even without blackouts, power outages cause a continual and significant drag on the economy

IEEE, 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, “Reliability and Blackouts,” 4-25-2007+,
http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp) // SM

Preventing outages and blackouts is of utmost concern to the nation and the world. Some estimates claim that the costs of
electric power outages are $26 billion each year in the US alone and have been increasing as the electric power industry is
restructured [2]. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates that power outages and insufficient power quality
cost the US economy over $119 billion per year [2, 5]. Not enough effort is put towards ensuring reliability; some argue that
US electric reliability improvements have lagged behind other improvements, such as efficiency and conservation, and this
lagging has compounded the occurrence of blackouts [6].

A national RPS solves by spurring critical transmission upgrades

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment


Some utilities object to aggressive RPS mandates on the grounds that greater penetration of renewables will require costly
transmission system upgrades. New wind projects, for example, will need to be located in windy areas that are often far from
the cities where the most electricity is consumed.116 Mandating that utilities invest in new renewable generation, therefore,
is also mandating investment in new and expensive transmission upgrades.
Creating incentives for utilities to invest in much needed transmission system upgrades actually may be one of the hidden
benefits of a national RPS.
Utilities can overcome public opposition to new transmission infrastructure by arguing for the need to access renewable
resources. While public reaction to renewable energy is far from uniform, using access to renewable resources as a
justification for new transmission wins local support for projects and speeds their development.
In addition, because renewable energy technologies have much shorter lead-times than conventional power plants, utilities
can start getting use out of new power lines even as they wait to bring large conventional projects online. Quicker use of new
transmission capacity benefits ratepayers because new rules allow utilities to start recovering the full cost of transmission
investments even before utilities have built new capacity to fill them. // pg. 59
RPS Aff 20
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Also, the energy grid is susceptible to a terrorist attack that would create a cascade of power failures across the
country – a national RPS is critical to prevent this

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and
Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, “State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the
Cart?” Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY


Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of
generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power
outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from
nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The
security issues facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten
times, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and San Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity
infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation Front were able
to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems.
n24
Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in
direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would
use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric
power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a
lineman putting things up a pole." n26
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their
operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization.
Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and
intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts
inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27
Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity
generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in
incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International
Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few
facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing
energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents
and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to
refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration
units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A national RPS or SBC
promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more
technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.
RPS Aff 21
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


Terrorist attack on the power grid will cause an economic crisis greater than the Great Depression

CNN, 7 (Jeanne Meserve, “Mouse click could plunge city into darkness, experts say,” 9-27-2007,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText)

Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the government and
electrical industry about what might happen if such an attack were carried out on a larger scale, CNN has learned. Sources
familiar with the experiment said the same attack scenario could be used against huge generators that produce the country's
electric power. Some experts fear bigger, coordinated attacks could cause widespread damage to electric infrastructure that
could take months to fix. CNN has honored a request from the Department of Homeland Security not to divulge certain
details about the experiment, dubbed "Aurora," and conducted in March at the Department of Energy's Idaho lab. In a
previously classified video of the test CNN obtained, the generator shakes and smokes, and then stops. DHS acknowledged
the experiment involved controlled hacking into a replica of a power plant's control system. Sources familiar with the test
said researchers changed the operating cycle of the generator, sending it out of control. Watch the generator shake and start to
smoke » The White House was briefed on the experiment, and DHS officials said they have since been working with the
electric industry to devise a way to thwart such an attack. "I can't say it [the vulnerability] has been eliminated. But I can say
a lot of risk has been taken off the table," said Robert Jamison, acting undersecretary of DHS's National Protection and
Programs Directorate. Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical hardware to
protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all
nuclear plants have made the fix. Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in
ways not previously demonstrated. "What people had assumed in the past is the worst thing you can do is shut things down.
And that's not necessarily the case. A lot of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve -- have bad things
spew out of a valve," said Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions. "The point is, it allows you to take control of these very
large, very critical pieces of equipment and you can have them do what you want them to do," he said. Adding to the
vulnerability of control systems, many of them are manufactured and used overseas. Persons at manufacturing plants
overseas have access to control system schematics and even software program passwords, industry experts say. Weiss and
others hypothesize that multiple, simultaneous cyber-attacks on key electric facilities could knock out power to a large
geographic area for months, harming the nation's economy. See how America's power grid works » "For about $5 million and
between three to five years of preparation, an organization, whether it be transnational terrorist groups or nation states, could
mount a strategic attack against the United States," said O. Sami Saydjari of the nonprofit Professionals for Cyber Defense.
Economist Scott Borg, who produces security-related data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the country
lost power for three months, the economic price tag would be $700 billion. "It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large hurricanes
striking all at once," Borg said. "It's greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered. ... It's greater then the
Great Depression. It's greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in World War II." Computer
experts have long warned of the vulnerability of cyber attacks, and many say the government is not devoting enough money
or attention to the matter. "We need to get on it, and get on it quickly," said former CIA Director James Woolsey on Tuesday.
Woolsey, along with other prominent computer and security experts, signed a 2002 letter to President Bush urging a massive
cyber-defense program. "Fast and resolute mitigating action is needed to avoid a national disaster," the letter said.
RPS Aff 22
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Economy Adv


The fourth internal link is Unemployment

The latest job market report has crushed consumer confidence and set the stage for a more serious decline in the
economy

Reuters in 8 (“Weak Confidence, Prices Stroke U.S. Stagflation Fears; Housing Worsens. Collapse in Home Prices
Accelerates to Record Pace”, 2-27-08, Lexis-Nexus Academic)

U.S. consumer confidence slumped to its worst in five years this month as a tough job market helped produce the grimmest
future outlook in 17 years, while soaring inflation among producers at the year's start stoked fears of stagflation.
Bad news also poured in from the beleaguered housing market, other data showed yesterday. The collapse in U.S. home prices accelerated to a record pace in the fourth quarter of
2007, with prices plunging 8.9 per cent last year, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index.
A government report showed U.S. producer prices jumped one per cent in January on rising energy costs and posted the biggest 12-month gain in more than 26 years, which was
the last time the U.S. was emerging from a stagflationary period of low growth and high inflation.
The Conference Board said its index of consumer sentiment fell to 75.0 in February, significantly worse than economists' forecasts and its lowest in five years. The Conference
Board's expectations index fell to 57.9 - its lowest in 17 years.
"It looks like there is no confidence in an economy where inflation is getting out of control," said Andrew Brenner, market analyst at MF Global in New York.
"This is a classic stagflation scenario."
It was the biggest monthly drop in the consumer confidence and expectations indexes since September 2005, following
Hurricane Katrina. The present situation index saw its biggest tumble since October 2001, the last time the United States was
in recession.
Sentiment suffered amid a worsening view of the jobs market. The measure of "jobs hard to get" rose to 23.8 in February - its highest since October
2005 - from 20.6 in January.
The measure of "jobs plentiful" fell to 20.6 - its lowest since April 2005 - from 23.8.
The proportion of respondents identifying jobs as plentiful fell by 3.2 percentage points, the biggest drop in a year and a half.
The jobs hard to get response shot up by the most in nearly five years.

In particular, the manufacturing sector is being hit especially hard

Kennedy and Richter in 7—Bloomberg News Staff Writers (*Simon and **Joe, “Rising Oil Prices May Tip U.S. Into a
Recession”, 11-12-07, Bloomberg News, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/11/bloomberg/bxecon.php)
Manufacturers are among the first to feel the pinch: Rising energy prices are increasing their costs, while drooping consumer
and business confidence erodes demand.
In the United States, the manufacturing index of the Institute for Supply Management fell to a seven-month low in October as gauges of orders and production declined.
Caterpillar, based in Illinois, the
biggest maker of bulldozers and excavators, cut its profit forecast last month and said the U.S.
economy would be "near to, or even in, recession" in 2008.

A federal RPS will generate thousands of new jobs in manufacturing States that have suffered the most recent job
losses

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Perhaps themost important, if not the most obvious, potential benefit of a national RPS is economic development and job creation. In
projecting the impact of a 20% national RPS, the Union of Concerned Scientists determined that, by 2020, such an
RPS "would generate more than 355,000
jobs in manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other industries - nearly twice as many as fossil fuels,
representing a net increase of 157,480 jobs ... ." n61 Further, it was determined that renewable energy would "provide an additional $ 8.2
billion in income and $ 10.2 billion in gross domestic product in the U.S. economy in 2020." n62 Although premised on a national RPS
percentage higher than that in the Proposed RPS, these numbers nonetheless indicate that a national RPS could provide significant economic benefits.
The most compelling job creation claims come from a report developed by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP). The group determined that more
than 16,000
firms in all fifty states have the technical potential to enter the growing wind turbine manufacturing sector. n63 The twenty
states that would potentially benefit the most, receiving 80% of the job creation, are the same states that account for "76% of
the manufacturing jobs lost in the [U.S. over the] last 3 1/2 years." n64
The report considered the impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs if there were eight times more wind energy installations, which
would mean a capital investment of $ 50 billion. n65 Again, while this report is an estimate based on a [*59] number of major assumptions, the conclusions
are still compelling, especially in states that have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the past six years. n66
RPS Aff 23
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


Contention _____ is Competitiveness

The global renewable market is rapidly expanding – the U.S. will miss out on this multi-billion dollar energy
revolution without strong and consistent government support for domestic renewable energy production

Sawin, 2 – Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute


(Janet, Climate Wise, “Losing the Clean Energy Race,” 3-26- 2002, www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066) // JMP

The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the
dominant global role in wind and solar PV development and deployment.
But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies
that continue to favor dirty, conventional fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders.
We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy
generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers.
U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace.
If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential
investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that
come with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global
warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future.
With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than
double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading
manufacturer of wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of
global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001.
Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in
Germany.
The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for
renewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for
renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many
times that for renewable energy technologies.
Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy economy to address global
climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps most importantly, the
American public wants clean energy.
In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for investment in renewable energy technologies over
conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new
sources of energy, such as solar and wind.
Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance
renewable energy in order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be
brought, full force, into service…. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory
and tax conditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential."
David Freeman, who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and
now heads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electric
power supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear."
Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to
expand renewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a
level playing field in the energy sector."
Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a]
competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little…."
Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy,
ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's
greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity
each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's
surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any
industrialized country.

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted


RPS Aff 24
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar
energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment
for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply,
improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and
innovation.
In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energy
technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested
than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an
energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs.
The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing
energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules
have increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996.
During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind
power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime,
while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full
life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.
Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more
than ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-
energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most
important industries."
Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in
developing countries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for
renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the
European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the
year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The
European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by
2040.
Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a
ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have
more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly
unlimited market potential.
The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of
activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming
decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To
compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and
consistent domestic market for their products.
RPS Aff 25
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


The lack of a federal RPS is robbing domestic industries of valuable export opportunities and locking in U.S.
inferiority in this critical market

Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University
(Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if
America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP

There are good jobs to be had in environmentally friendly development, and construction jobs are just the beginning.
Thousands of jobs are in products that go into green buildings. The job potential in renewable energy production is even more
impressive. The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimates that producing 10 percent of the nation's electricity with
renewable sources would create 381,000 jobs producing the component parts of the systems. Already, renewable energy
(biomass, solar, wind, geothermal) employ more than 115,000 people directly. These new jobs more than compensate for
ongoing job loss in the coal and oil industries as clean forms of energy replace polluting ones.
Renewable energy is labor-intensive. It generates more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and installation per megawatt of
power than coal and natural gas. These jobs start with research and development. They produce an array of goods and
services from renewable energy itself to products made from high-tech or recycled materials. The majority of the jobs created
would be in manufacturing, although there are many in operations and maintenance and in system installation.
These jobs, often called greentech or cleantech, could provide middle-class wages for hundreds of thousands of Americans
while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving the environment. Producing for export could improve the
balance of trade. That's the potential. The reality is that we're falling behind other countries. Solar power was invented in the
United States, but Japan and Germany moved ahead of us in production in the late 1990s and China is not far behind. In wind
power capacity, we're behind Germany and Spain. We're also behind on enacting policies to spur the growth of cleantech
industries -- and it is public policy that drives research and development, as well as the employment that follows.
Forty-three countries have renewable portfolio standards that require a specified percentage of energy be from renewable
sources by a given year. But the U.S. Congress has failed to enact such a standard for our country. Instead, states and cities in
the United States are trying to fill the policy vacuum.
RPS Aff 26
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


Dominance by Europe and Japan in global renewable markets will collapse the U.S. economy – a transition to
renewables is critical to prevent this

Rynn, June 20th – frequent contributor to the Grist environmental blog and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus
(Jonathon, Asia Times, “Guns Blight US Energy Choices,” 6-20-2008,
www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html)-CMM

When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion worth, the only companies that were able to bid
on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United
States.
The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11
companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the
global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these
markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves.
Take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, Germany has put up 88% of the photovoltaics for solar power in Europe. Partly, this was
the result of a feed-in tariff; that is, Germany guarantees that it will pay about 0.10 euro (15 US cents) per kilowatt/hour of electricity to whoever produces wind or solar electricity.
The average for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about 0.05 euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful
effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of
introducing new technology.
Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment - 32% of the solar equipment
manufacturers in the world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German.
In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the
Earth Policy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20% of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country." The Danes have created a fascinating
experiment in democracy by building most of their wind turbines through the agency of wind cooperatives, which may be joined by individuals and families.
Spain has undertaken one of the most ambitious programs in wind, solar, and high-speed trains. The Gamesa Corporation is the second-largest wind turbine manufacturer, and
Acciona Energy is the largest wind-park developer. The Spanish government has very ambitious plans for wind production, and occasionally wind power provides as much as 30%
of the country's electrical power.
Spain is also the world's fourth-largest producer of solar energy equipment and is a leader in the development of concentrated solar power - a form of solar power obtained by
using a very large quantity of mirrors, typically, to concentrate solar rays onto a tower that produces steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. They are often built in
deserts and can spread over several acres. These new solar technologies will probably result in lower-cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics.
Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006, Japan produced about 39% of the solar cells in the
world and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network
covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world’s biggest producers of solar and wind equipment owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation.
Europe sets the pace
But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence.
They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing
industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector).
The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States, according to data compiled by the EU, Japan produces almost as much as
the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively.
A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe.
Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a
modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and
services that people consume.
The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers,
operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States
comprised only 13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The
decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-
again/off-again nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the United
States in the transition to a more sustainable economy.
And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor
Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the engineering, scientific
and business talent that Europe and Japan have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens
can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse.
That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline
of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and
Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the
generation of renewable electricity.
RPS Aff 27
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


In addition, the proliferation of individual state renewable portfolio standards is creating confusion for electricity
providers that undermines U.S. competitiveness

UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007,
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP

WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- A national renewable energy portfolio standard could decrease greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously shrink electric bills, some experts
say.
The mandate would require electric utility companies to generate a specific percentage of their power from renewable energy sources or buy renewable energy credits from others.
Almost half of the states already have renewable portfolio standards in place -- 23 plus the District of Columbia, and including Oregon and New
Hampshire, the two most recent to pass RPS legislation.
However, this medley of standards has created confusion among electricity providers, many of whom operate in multiple states,
said Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the National Commission on Energy Policy.
"Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," she told United Press International. "Different renewable
resources qualify in one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete and be
effective if the regulations aren't uniform?"
A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the burden of renewable-energy
development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit from the efforts of their neighbors but impose no mandates within
their own borders.

U.S. technological leadership is crucial to America’s global primacy and economic prosperity

Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations


(Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html) // JMP

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than
anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the
country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the
Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming
from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel,
Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles
published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the
world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the
manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and
advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing.
Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed,
as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will
never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can
remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone
else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological
entrepreneurship at home.

The result is global nuclear exchange

Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation


(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On
balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a
world in which the United States
exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free
markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
RPS Aff 28
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv


Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to capture large shares of the global
market and overtake competitors in Europe and Japan

Walsh & White, 8 – * national policy director for Green For All and ** senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin
Strategy
(Jason Walsh and Sarah White, Asia Times, “Jobs up for grabs in cleaner economy,” 5-20-2008,
www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html) // JMP

Employment opportunity
In the United States, green-collar jobs offer new opportunities for low-income and working class people who have been at the short end of persistent and
increasing inequality in this country. Despite significant boosts in worker productivity over recent decades, median wages remain stagnant. The decline in
manufacturing jobs over the past decade gathered steam with an 18% national job loss after the 2001 recession, plummeting with particularly devastating
consequences in the industrial heartland, which bore up to a third of the national job loss recorded between 2000 and 2005.
Nationally, median family income has not recovered to the pre-recession levels of 2000, and job insecurity threatens workers at all levels. This trend toward
greater inequality, wage stagnation, job loss and insecurity stems from many factors, not least economic and trade policies that have encouraged offshoring,
real and threatened, and wage triage on a global scale.
The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity. But it can
contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding
existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic
jobs.
What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary sectors of a clean-
energy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source,
using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection
includes both the full range of jobs in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of
such approximations, even the most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization.
A large part of this promise is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and
built environment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in China. The energy
efficiency industry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through systematic retrofitting and upgrading of
residential and commercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The
work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a building-materials industry that is still largely domestic.
Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt
hour saved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US
energy efficiency industry in 2006 alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency).
Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of
job losses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable
Energy Policy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become
component manufacturing leaders for the wind industry.
If the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the amount needed to
stabilize US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. And the top 20 states
that stand to benefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great
Lakes states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Industrial capacity and transportation networks are key assets to turbine production. Wind turbines are massive and extremely heavy machines. The towers
alone are up to 250 feet tall, 16 feet in diameter and weigh more than 100 tons. An assembled nacelle - the fiberglass case that sits on top of the tower and
houses the gearbox and generator - weighs around 70 tons, and the rotor assembly with blades, each of which can be up to 200 feet long, weighs in at around
40. It is no surprise that most new facilities in the US are sited close to water and rail, like the Gamesa plant on the Delaware River in Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, or the Siemens factory on the Mississippi in Fort Madison, Iowa.
The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing the
expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines
overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and
a foundering dollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas
(Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally.
The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the
links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional promise that US-
based green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based renewable energy
and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets and export their products,
from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world.
Sound national policy
The possible future, then, is compelling, as long as we demonstrate the policy smarts and political will to achieve it. This
means crafting sound national policy to create stable domestic markets for renewable energy and using related energy
standards as green job creation tools.
RPS Aff 29
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – China Adv


Contention _____ is China

China has set itself on a course of environmental destruction by increasing reliance on coal. A strong commitment
from the U.S. – including technology transfers and cooperation – is essential to solve China’s growing greenhouse
crises.

Richardson, 8 – former US Secretary of Energy


(Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 86-88)

At last, a headline carrying a hint of hope and optimism!


China is both the greatest hope for serious new global progress on energy and climate and potentially the greatest threat to
such progress.
Along with ten other major national academies of science (including those of Brazil, 5ndia, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and Russia), the Chinese science community has
signed on to international statements acknowledging the incredible risk of climate change. The Chinese know that drought, famine, sea-level rise, severe weather, and other
impacts of climate change would hit China as hard as anywhere else on Earth. In fact, global warming impacts would hit them harder than most, because the Chinese population is
the world’s largest, and the country is only beginning to build the economic strength and wealth to respond when global warming starts causing major damage and disruption.
China’s is a new economy, an economy that is growing fast but struggles to keep up with the understandable demands of its energy-starved people. With more than four times as
many people as the United States, China
could demand that it should grow to have the same per capita energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions as the United States. What a horrible situation that would create for people all around the world.
There are few areas in which communism is more efficient than capitalism, but one is running the environment. It took the United States’ capitalist, free-market economy hundreds
of years to achieve the same levels of environmental destruction that China, at its current pace, will achieve in about twenty.
China’s economic officials predict that china will build another large coal-based electric-generating unit every week for the
next decade. (India is in a similar situation, trying to provide basic electrical service for its own huge population and fast-growing economy.) Why would china
decide, on its own, to use more expensive climate-friendly, carbon-clean coal technologies? Especially when it sees the United
States refusing to adopt carbon limits and expanding its own carbon emissions every year, even though its economy is relatively mature?
Obviously, the answer is that China won’t make a unilateral commitment to the more expensive approach of doing it right. It
needs international encouragement, financial assistance, and a commitment that it can grow and provide its people with basic
services and resources to build the nation’s economy and quality of life. They are 1.3 billion people who are striving to achieve basic human
comforts and conveniences of life (which we can sell them, if we get on it). We are 300 million people living in a more mature economy with much higher energy use per capita.
Conservatives in the United States who decry any U.S. commitment to cut global warming emissions without a concomitant
commitment by the Chinese are demagogues who don’t want to solve the problem. The Chinese will likely need to increase, not reduce. While
we bring our emissions down, China’s emissions will rise. Our goal should be to keep those increases to a bare minimum in a way that helps China join the international economy.
That kind of stabilization will be good for the world economy and the world climate.
We absolutely must find a way not only to agree with China and India (and other large, fast-growing nations) on the technologies, energy
investments, and emissions limits that will create some future security or our climate, but also to cooperatively make sure that
they will have the energy they need.
The only way to get developing nations the power they need, with or without tremendous environmental destruction, is to
implement new technologies. We need to expand our energy-producing options, and we need a revolution in energy-saving
options. We can help China with energy productivity. “China wastes a lot,” said the Economist’s World Review 2007. “Take energy consumption. China
required 4.3 times as much energy as America in 2005 to produce one unit of GDP (gross domestic product), up from 3.4 times in 2002…. India, also a rapidly expanding
Are China and India following the same fossil energy path to prosperity
economy, consumes only 61% as much energy as China per unit of GDP.”
that the U.S. followed? It appears so. We need to help such nations forge a better path that doesn’t threaten the world’s basic
environmental health.

The impacts of this environmental and agricultural destruction are sure to intensify as China accelerates its economic
growth
BBC 7 [“Pollution 'hits China's farmland,” 4-27-07, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6582571.stm]

Rapid economic growth has had a damaging impact on China's environment.


Its cities, countryside, waterways and coastlines are among the most polluted in the world.
The Ministry of Land and Resources said agricultural land in China fell to 121.8 million hectares (300 million acres) by the end of
October 2006 - a loss of 306,800 hectares since the start of the year.
Heavy metals alone contaminate 12m tonnes of grain each year, causing annual losses of 20bn yuan ($2.6bn), China's Xinhua
news agency quoted the ministry as saying.
Land and Resources Minister Sun Wensheng said agricultural land in China must not be allowed to fall below 120 million hectares.
"This is not only related to social and economic development, but is also vital to the long-term interests of the country,"
he was quoted as saying.
China's government has promised to spend heavily to clean up the country's heavily polluted environment.
But clean-up efforts are often thwarted by lax enforcement of laws and administrative activity at a local level, correspondents say.
RPS Aff 30
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – China Adv


China’s pollution problem spreads globally and causes hundreds and thousands of systemic deaths.

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can
take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo.
But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem
has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international
repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political
challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air
pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe
drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe
air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex
machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial
cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a
coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.
China is choking on its own success. The economy is on a historic run, posting a succession of double-digit growth rates. But
the growth derives, now more than at any time in the recent past, from a staggering expansion of heavy industry and
urbanization that requires colossal inputs of energy, almost all from coal, the most readily available, and dirtiest, source.
“It is a very awkward situation for the country because our greatest achievement is also our biggest burden,” says Wang
Jinnan, one of China’s leading environmental researchers. “There is pressure for change, but many people refuse to accept
that we need a new approach so soon.”
China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power
plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in
China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
RPS Aff 31
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – China Adv


In particular, China’s greenhouse emissions are devastating its agriculture sector – only greater renewable exports
from the U.S. can help China make the transition to a green society and save its economy

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

Build Jobs Across Socioeconomic Groups – the Green Jobs Program in the U. S. and Overseas
Green jobs can accrue across the entire economy, from laboratory research and development positions, to traditionally
unionized work in plumbing, electrical wiring, and civil engineering. Following the critically important Green Jobs initiative
Senator Sanders spearheaded in the Senate, the House Green Jobs Act (initially sponsored by Solis and Tierny, HR 2847, now
part of the HR 3221, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007) invests in worker training and career
opportunities for low-income Americans. These efforts are to be applauded, and could be the model for expanded job access
and development efforts in a wide range of energy related industries.
In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one
where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and
Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations
and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those
orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for
both domestic installation and overseas export.
Technology exports have impacts well beyond domestic job creation. In fact, if properly managed, the development of a
thriving ‘cleantech’ sector can address a vital global issues, namely the emissions trajectories of major developing nations.
China and India are often singled out for attention as major, emerging global emitters. China, in fact, will become the
world’s largest greenhouse emitter in the near future, if it has not already. This fact, is often used – mistakenly in my view –
to argue against unilateral climate protection efforts by nations such as the United States. This view is shortsighted in two
vital respects. First, China is demonstrably already suffering from the impacts of fossil fuel use. Crop yields in many parts of
China are significantly lower than they would be without the significant sulfur and particulate burden that results from
domestic coal combustion. (In fact, coal combustions emissions from China have significant air quality impacts on Japan, and
can be measured in the U. S. as well.) Crop losses of over 20% have been reported in part of China, with the decrease
unambiguously linked to air pollution. China also experiences significant human health impacts from this pollution burden
as well.
Second, China has committed, on paper, to a ‘circular economy’ where waste is reduced and overall productivity is enhanced.
If the United States were to become a major exporter, or even a partner, in the production of low-emissions technologies –
from truly carbon-capture coal-fired power plants, to increased numbers of solar, wind, and biofuel technologies – China
would be an eager trading partner, so that they could install increasing numbers of low-emissions technologies. This would
directly help the Chinese economy and their environmental and public health situation.
On both of these grounds, U. S. domestic expansion of the clean energy sector will likely positively impact the ability and the
actions of a number of emerging economies to ‘go green’.

Strong Chinese growth is key to prevent World War 3

Plate, 3 – Professor at UCLA


(Tom, The Straights Times, “Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than Chin,” 6-28-2003)

But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much
less outright military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into
chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want
them and cant handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II revisited and look to annex a
slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile,
India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why
wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to
prefer.
RPS Aff 32
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv


Contention _____ is Anti-Terrorism Cooperation

Federal government concessions on climate policy are critical to long-term U.S.-E.U. cooperation on the war on terror

Busby, 3 – doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University


(Joshua, Current History, “Climate change blues: Why the United States and Europe just can't get along,” March 2003, vol.
102, no. 662, p.113, from EBSCO) // JMP
But rhetorical objections to hegemonic leadership may net political gains at home. A state may seek to differentiate itself from the most powerful state in the way that France has had an onagain/ off-again
ambivalent relationship with NATO. In the current climate, secondary powers may serve as the moral guardians of the Western order in a division of labor. With the United States providing the security
umbrella and demonstrating (until recently) overwhelming economic strength, European countries may see defense of social democratic gains and humanitarian internationalism as their distinctive contribution
to the Western order. Although this may have advantages when courting the developing world, the primary gains may be for domestic audiences, anxious in the face of regional integration and globalization to
have a cover of legitimacy for activities that bind them internationally to their peers. This may explain why the United States and Europe differ in so many areas, both in terms of substantive disagreements over
policies as well as conflicts over unilateralist and multilateralist decision-making processes.
Do the significant differences on both substance and process signify that the consequences of the clash are potentially serious
for United States interests on matters the administration really cares about, such as terrorism? If the issue of global warming were
considered in isolation, the answer is no; the fallout from the dispute is not significant. Environmental issues in the United States tend not to win or lose elections. Instead, the dispute
between the United States and Europe on global warming may be preferable for both parties since the conflict can be blamed on the other’s intransigence, with neither side having to make the hard choices
required to actually deal with the problem.
However, as mass publics become increasingly convinced that global warming is a real phenomenon that demands attention,
efforts to blame other actors will incur political costs, as Bush discovered early in his administration. Moreover, since the issue of global warming is
a proxy battle over the way in which the United States exercises its power, significant domestic difficulties may prevent European
partners from contributing meaningfully when the United States desires. Indeed, barring a major terrorist event on European soil, Europe is likely to lack
the same sense of vulnerability and threat that has motivated America’s vigorous prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and
beyond. Such domestic opposition is clearly true with respect to Iraq. While empathy was significant in the days following September 11, the long-run commitment
by Europeans to the project depends on the sense of shared norms, which must mean something other than the fight against
terrorism. A positive set of values not merely reducible to democracy must motivate the collective sense of mission.
In a recent volume on American hegemony, a number of prominent scholars—Stephen Walt and Joseph Joffe among them—see the European and United States conflict over global warming as indicative of a
8With European cooperation on the war on terrorism needed, Walt counsels that the Bush administration would be
larger disconnect between the two parties.
wise to make policy concessions on climate change to reward allies on issues over which they have quarreled. Again,
concessions on other issues Europeans care about— global warming, chemical weapons—are seen as the price of hegemony.
As policy prescription, this scenario fails to give guidance on when such policy concessions are more costly than nonagreement. Cooperation may not always be a good thing. As Amity Shlaes, a columnist for
the Financial Times, recently noted, there is a danger that the process will become an end in itself: “The trouble with multilateralism is that it has become a game—a game for its own sake. Multilateral
institutions are, after all, only as good as the goal they serve.”9
SELF-ENCIRCLEMENT
In terms of global warming, there is obviously room for disagreement between those who see ratification as the point of finally getting to implementation and those who view it as a reprieve from a death
sentence. If global warming were merely one issue over which the United States and Europe were in conflict, it might be reasonable for the United States to wait for Europe to make the first move in the same
way Britain has watched the euro unfold. Although it may be inevitable that the United States will join the effort (and Britain the euro), that will happen only when its domestic politics are in order and the ill-
conceived aspects of the framework are discarded.
Global warming never was completely isolated from other aspects of foreign policy, and its significance becomes clearer as ties between the United States and Europe are strained. Although it may make sense
Even if balancing is no longer the primary
for the United States to oppose particular agreements on substantive grounds, blanket rejection of all multilateral initiatives does not.
worry, noncooperation or foot-dragging in an area where European support is needed could render ineffective efforts such as
tracking terrorists and their sources of financing.
American noncooperation will most likely generate domestic constraints in Europe that contribute to a division over the sense
of shared values—and mutual threat. Thus, even where elite leaders in Europe may want to cooperate fully with the United States,
they may feel vulnerable to domestic polities increasingly upset with their governments for allying with the United States yet
receiving no apparent reciprocity. The net result of United States noncooperation may be self-encirclement.10

European nations support a 20% mandatory target for renewables

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

IN EUROPE this past February, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the United Kingdom would support a 20 percent
mandatory target for renewable power as a share of European generation capacity. (1) His announcement complements the
policies of 17 other European Union countries that have also set some type of national, mandatory target for promoting renewable
energy. And in terms of climate policy in Europe, the European Union Green-house Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) calls for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and allows countries to trade carbon credits. In the past five years, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Israel, Nicaragua, Norway, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and Turkey
have adopted mandatory renewable energy of climate change targets. (2) These countries have frequently linked action on renewable energy and climate change together because
they realize that the combustion of fossil fuels greatly contributes to climate change, and they do not like fouling their own nests.
RPS Aff 33
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv


Anti-terror cooperation is critical to prevent extinction

Jerusalem Post, 4 (David Rudge, “Terror expert: Worst is yet to come; [Daily Edition],” 5-12-2004, p.06, Proquest) // JMP

Global terrorism is on the rise and is likely to continue unabated for the next 100 years, according to Prof. Yonah Alexander, one of the world's
leading analysts on the subject.
Alexander, director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies, also believes it
is only a matter of time before groups like al-Qaida use non-
coventional weapons as part of attempts to promulgate their ideology and undermine western society.
In this respect, he anticipates that al-Qaida's next theater of operations will be Europe, where the organization has established a
widespread base and network.
"If you ask me whether the worst is yet to come, the answer is definitely yes," Alexander told The Jerusalem Post prior to giving a lecture as guest speaker at the University of
Haifa's National Security Studies Center.
"We can expect to see an escalation in terrorism on a global scale with a continuation of conventional acts of terror, such as suicide bombings and
shooting, as well as mega-terror like September 11 in the US and March 11 in Spain.
"There will also be a move towards the use of non- conventional weapons: biological, chemical, nuclear as in dirty bombs, and cyber-
terrorism, whereby perpetrators will try to disrupt power supplies and air traffic, for example, at the touch of a button."
Alexander, who is based in the US and Israel, has studied the subject of terrorism in the Middle East and the global arena for over 40 years and has published over 100 books on
the issue. The center he heads is a consortium of universities and think-tanks in some 30 countries.
He said there had already been indications of future trends by terrorist organizations such as the anthrax attacks in the US after September 11, 2001, reports that al-Qaida was
trying to produce ricin and, in Israel, the abortive attempt to blow up the Pi Glilot fuel and gas storage depot.
"According to the studies we have conducted, we can expect a continuation of bus bombings like the ones that have occurred in Israel, as well as attempts to strike at chemical
plants and infrastructure targets and super- terrorism with non-conventional weapons," said Alexander.
The supposition that international terrorism will expand and escalate is based, according to Alexander, on factors such as the spread of radical theological ideology, racial
intolerance, ethnic and religious differences and, especially in Africa, tribal rivalries, as well as extremist nationalism and separatism.
Furthermore, he cited the numerous disputes and conflicts throughout the world, such as those in Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South America, as well as
the gap between developed nations and poorer countries.
"Other important factors include the intensification of the link between terrorism and organized crime, and the education of hatred, including anti-Semitism, that we see all the time
on various Internet sites," said Alexander.
"The problem here is that children are being brought up to hate and they will pass this on to their children and so forth, which is why we don't see an end to terrorism in the next
100 years.
"Should we be concerned about the future? Yes, we should, because of the motivation of terrorists, their ideologies, the availability of funds, the proliferation of conventional and
non- conventional weapons, the intrinsic vulnerability of democratic societies and the high cost of trying to counter terror.
"What concerns many is the expansion of international networks as seen after the Madrid bombings, when links were discovered between Spanish citizens and people in North
Africa, Asia, and with various other groups like Hamas.
"It would be a grave mistake, however, to say that Islam is generating this terror. In fact, Islam has been hijacked and taken hostage by extremists who are using it to serve their
own interests."
Alexander, in his lecture, posed the questions of whether nations should submit to terrorism and whether civilization would survive in the event of the use of non- conventional
weapons.
In the first case, he maintained that submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all
necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation.
"Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have
quality intelligence, as well as law enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said
Alexander.
"We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements
and their propaganda, the measures won't work.
"We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership.
"To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation
can deal with the problem unilaterally.
"In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations.
"In fact," said Alexander, "it
represents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival
will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat."

Terrorism outweighs on timeframe and probability

Bremmer, 8 – president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy (Ian, 1/18, A Political-Risk Outlook for 2008,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_politicalrisk_outlook_for_20.html, AG)

Most worrying is a pre-election attack in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security raised its threat
warning over the summer, not based on direct intelligence on a suspected attack in the works (the previous modus operandi),
but rather because of concerns over increasing terrorist capacity and chatter over a change in strategy to accept smaller
attacks in the United States - given increased al-Qaida resources and the long time since a successful attack has been
perpetrated. It's impossible to put a useful quantified prediction on these sorts of concerns, but all of those factors make the
likelihood of a small to medium-scale U.S. attack in 2008 higher than at any other point since 9/11.
RPS Aff 34
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


We conclude with Solvency

Federal leadership is the only way to provide sufficient investor confidence to develop a renewables market that
boosts U.S. competitiveness

Flavin & Podesta, 6 – *president of the Worldwatch Institute and **president of theCenter for American Progress,
(Christopher and John, American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf)

Americans today are no less clever or ambitious than their great-grandparents were. A new and better energy future is
possible if the country can forge a compelling vision of where it wants to be. Recent developments in the global marketplace
show the potential:
• Global wind energy generation has more than tripled since 2000, providing enough electricity to power the homes of about
30 million Americans. The United States led the world in wind energy installations in 2005.
• Production of electricity-generating solar cells is one of the world’s fastest growing industries, up 45 percent in 2005 to six
times the level in 2000.
• Production of fuel ethanol from crops more than doubled between 2000 and 2005, and biodiesel from vegetable oil and
waste expanded nearly four-fold over this period.
Global investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydropower) in 2005 is estimated at $38 billion—equivalent to
nearly 20 percent of total annual investment in the electric power sector. Renewable energy investments have nearly doubled
over the past three years, and have increased six-fold since 1995. Next to the Internet, new energy technology has become
one of the hottest investment fields for venture capitalists.
These dynamic growth rates are driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. They are also creating new
economic opportunities for people around the globe. Today, renewable energy manufacturing, operations, and maintenance
provide approximately two million jobs worldwide.
The United States will need a much stronger commitment to renewable energy if it is to take advantage of these
opportunities. As President Bush has said, America is “addicted to oil,” and dependence on fossil fuels is rising, even in the
face of high oil prices and growing concern about global warming. Of particular concern is the well over 100 coal-fired
power plants now on the drawing boards of the U.S. electricity industry—most of which lack the latest pollution controls and
could still be pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a halfcentury from now.
In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies, America will need a world-class energy policy.
The prominent positions that Germany and Spain hold in wind power, for example, and that Japan and Germany enjoy in
solar energy, were achieved thanks to strong and enduring policies that their legislatures adopted in the 1990s. These policies
created steadily growing markets for renewable energy technologies, fueling the development of robust new manufacturing
industries.
By contrast, U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades have been an ever changing patchwork. Abrupt
changes in direction at both the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy.
If America is to join the world leaders and achieve the nation’s full potential for renewable energy, it will need world-class
energy policies based on a sustained and consistent policy framework at the local, state, and national levels.
Across the country, the tide has begun to turn. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewable
energy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their
targets in 2005, signaling fresh political momentum. If such policies continue to proliferate, and are joined by federal
leadership, rapid progress is possible.
RPS Aff 35
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


Problems with a national RPS are all exaggerated and much more likely with the network of State RPSs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose a federal RPS mandate, repeating myths that have
long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a (diminishing) series of canards that mischaracterize a national RPS policy as an
unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. Forgetting
that a majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own
clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing and sometimes irrational mess of mandates, opponents of a national RPS wheel
out these war-torn myths every time the issue is considered:
Myth #1: A national RPS would create “winners and losers”
Truth: All
states have renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the current system of state mandates,
some RPS states are “losers” by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in non-RPS states. Other RPS states are victims to
inconsistencies between state mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their cheap in-state renewable electricity to other states in exchange
for more expensive electricity or renewable energy credits. A national
mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform
rules and by allowing utilities to purchase RECs or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive.
Myth #2: A national RPS would increase electricity rates
Truth: In most states, RPS mandates have not significantly increased rates and a consensus of economic models predict that a
national policy would generate substantial consumer savings over even the existing patchwork of state programs. By expanding the
amount of energy that would offset gas-fired generation, a national RPS would reduce demand on a strained and volatile natural gas market.
Renewable energy units with markedly faster lead-times than conventional and nuclear reactors speeds the cost recovery of critical transmission investments and reduces the rate
increases needed to pay for new transmission.
Myth #3: A national RPS would cost the electricity sector
Truth: When utilities say a national RPS “costs” the sector, they are usually assuming future profits they will not be able to recover from consumers through higher electricity rates.
For policymakers, balancing utility profits with electricity prices is one of the hard decisions we elect them to make. However, elected officials should consider that utility claims
of lost profit are short-sited (and strategically unsound). In reality, a
more predictable RPS regulatory environment decreases utility litigation and
compliance costs relative to a growing web of vague and unstable state mandates. Expanding the universe of eligible renewable resource
and establishing clear, uniform trading rules creates far more flexibility for regulated utilities and rewards utility investments on the basis of smart market strategy and not
geography. By
promoting a robust domestic manufacturing sector, a national RPS reduces the costs utilities pay in unfavorable
exchange rates and foreign parts and labor (and redirects those investments to the U.S. labor market).
Myth #4: A national RPS would only benefit one technology – large wind installations
Truth: Experience
from existing state RPS programs proves that mandates with broad eligibility actually have led to the
development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state RPS
requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable resources that best match their service areas.
A meta-analysis of 25 different RPS studies revealed that each of the states that have already responded to their own mandates by deploying a diverse array of renewable energy
technologies.
By expanding (geographically and monetarily) the market for renewable resources, a
national RPS is likely to diversify the deployment of renewable
energy technologies even further. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydro may be cheaper
than solar. In the Southeast, biomass may be the most affordable. A national RPS mandate with a fuel-based definition of eligible renewable resources ensures that free market
principles (rather than regulatory set-asides or political patronage) determine which technologies will be most cost competitive in certain areas of the country. An added bonus is
that auniform national RPS decreases compliance costs for regulated utilities, since a technology-neutral mandate allows
utilities to meet RPS obligations using the technology that is most cost competitive for the fuels available.
It is time that federal policymakers engage in an informed, comprehensive and rational debate about the few remaining objections to a federal RPS mandate. America faces serious
and mounting energy problems:
- continued dependence on dwindling foreign sources of fossil fuels and uranium
- an undiversified electricity fuel mixture that leaves the nation vulnerable to serious national security threats
- reliance on an ancient and overwhelmed transmission grid that risks more common, more pronounced, and more expensive catastrophic system failures
- an impending climate crisis that will require massive and expensive emissions controls costing billions of dollars and substantially reducing U.S. GDP
- loss of American economic competitiveness as Europe and Japan become the major manufacturing center for new clean energy technologies
It is time to decide. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can create a more just and more predictable regulatory environment
for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. By
offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate
with conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while
protecting human health and the environment.
There is a time for accepting the quirks and foibles of state experimentation in national energy policy; and there is a time to take look to
the states as laboratories for policy innovation. Now is the time to model the best state RPS policies and craft a coherent national policy that
protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers.
Now is the time for federal leadership. // pg. 151-153
RPS Aff 36
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


A national RPS is key to create a robust manufacturing base for renewables – overcomes inevitable bottlenecks
created by State programs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

C. A National RPS Improves Manufacturing Efficiency


Because the U.S. does not currently have a national RPS, it also lacks a relatively robust manufacturing base for most
renewable energy technologies. Renewable energy developers in the U.S. largely rely on European or other overseas
manufacturers for the requisite materials (and sometimes expertise and labor) to install renewable energy systems. This
reliance on foreign materials and labor increases construction lead-times as well as shipping costs. It also increases the
likelihood of unexpected delays and shortages.
The fragmented nature of state-based RPS policies actually compounds this problem by creating artificial bottlenecks in the
distribution of materials necessary to deploy renewable energy systems. New state mandates can create unexpected surges in
demand for renewable energy projects, driving up the price of components and labor. Roger Garratt, Director of Resource
Acquisition for Puget Sound Energy, recently remarked that the quick and somewhat unanticipated passage of Washington’s
initiative-driven RPS mandate “created a seller’s market caused by increasing competition for projects and a shortage of
turbine supplies” among wind manufacturers.351
A national RPS would instigate market-based solutions to unexpected material bottlenecks in at least three ways:
First, by providing a stable investment stream and a predictable regulatory environment, investors would have a greater
incentive to establish domestic manufacturing facilities and to rely on local materials and labor.
Second, under a national RPS, American developers would no longer suffer unfavorable exchange rates (given the recent
weakening of the dollar) when purchasing materials. One wind company (Nordex) even estimated that changes in the
exchange rate between Euros and dollars alone cost some American developers as much as $152,000 per project.352
Third, given the certainty of a national market for renewable energy, investors would likely develop better economies of scale
in manufacturing in order to ensure that a sufficient number of materials would exist to satisfy the resulting demand for
renewable energy projects. // pg. 133-134
RPS Aff 37
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


A federal RPS will effectively displace harmful conventional energy sources and eliminate free-riding and externalities
that are caused by individual state efforts. This evidence answers all of their objections a national RPS.

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and
Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, “State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the
Cart?” Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Third, renewable energy generation is subject to a free rider problem. Since everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy,
private companies that invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies are often unable to recover the full profit of their investments. Inevitably,
the market allows some consumers to be free riders, benefiting from the investments of others without paying for them.
STATE GOVERNMENT MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING RENEWABLE ENERGY
State policy interventions intend to stimulate a market for renewable resources and spur additional research, development, and implementation of renewable energy technologies.
So far, state governments in the United States have relied predominately on RPSs and SBCs to level the playing field by neutralizing a legacy of unequal federal subsidies and
directly requiring renewable energy. While
state policies are innovative and well intentioned, the time has come to shift to federal
regulation and intervention. Continued reliance on state-based activity alone will ironically promote more market
externalities and "free riding" than harmonized federal action.
SYSTEM BENEFIT CHARGES
Systems benefit charges (also called public benefit funds, system benefit funds, and clean energy funds) originated in the 1990s at a time when state policy makers were
considering electric utility restructuring legislation. Afraid that gains made in pursuing research, development, and implementation of environmentally-preferable renewable energy
technologies would end after markets were deregulated, advocates of the novel [*6] technologies won concessions in some states for a new funding mechanism for high-risk or
long-term projects. A SBC places a small tax on every kilowatt hour ("kWh") of electricity generated and utilizes those funds to pursue socially-beneficial energy projects. n5
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that SBCs have been responsible for promoting 1,117 megawatts ("MW") of renewable energy capacity. n6
SBCs were first implemented in Washington State in 1994 and were endorsed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1995 as a way to fund services that had previously
been included in customers' bills from regulated utility companies. n7 As part of the negotiations for California's restructuring law, environmental advocates won a provision for a
public benefit fund that would expend at least $ 872 million on energy-efficiency work from 1998 to the end of 2001 and would allocate $ 540 million on renewable energy
projects. n8 To develop renewable energy technologies and other programs expected to struggle after deregulation, the California Energy Commission created its Public Interest
Energy Research program, which initially drew about $ 62 million annually from the state's SBC. n9
By 2006, fifteen states created SBCs. The seventeen organizations that administer the funds, which are scheduled to total $ 4 billion by 2017, collaborate through a nonprofit
organization called the Clean Energy States Alliance. The organization sponsors original research, collects information and analyses, and seeks to expand the use of clean energy
technologies with a special emphasis on solar, wind, and fuel cells. Moreover, the group seeks to increase the efficiency of state research by eliminating duplication of efforts and
by providing forums for the states to share knowledge and insights. n10
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS
An RPS is a legislative mandate requiring electricity suppliers (often referred to as "load serving entities") in a given geographical area to employ renewable resources to produce a
certain percentage of power by a fixed date.
An RPS program transfers the risk of renewable energy investments from regulators to investors. n11 RPS uses the market as a mechanism to determine the efficacy of any given
technology; as a result, higher costs, if they occur, are distributed evenly throughout society to those that benefit from them, and are blended with the lower costs of existing
conventional generation. n12
Unlike instruments developed by public utility commissions with long and complex procedures, often followed by litigation, RPSs are bureaucratically simple. n13 RPSs enable
customers to pay producers directly for renewable energy, obviating the need for the administration of funds by government agencies. And, unlike a one-time award for funds, no
project is guaranteed a place in the market. n14
First implemented by Iowa and Minnesota in the 1980s, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already passed RPS laws requiring utilities to use renewable
resources as a portion of their overall provision of electricity. n15 Four other states have nonbinding renewable energy goals. n16 Five more states--Florida, Indiana, Louisiana,
Nebraska, and Utah--are considering mandating some form of RPS. Of the approximate 9,000 MW of wind energy in the United States, roughly fifty percent, or 4,500 MW, have
been promoted directly by RPS policies, whereas ten percent, or 900 MW, have been promoted by SBCs from 2001 to 2006. n17
THE CASE FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION
There are three reasons, however, why continued reliance on state-based efforts such as SBCs and RPSs will be insufficient to promote renewable
energy technologies in the United States on the scale needed to fight climate change.
IMPROVING RELIABILITY
First, federal intervention is needed to improve electricity reliability. Contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability of
renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. Electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes,
the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity
consumer, for example, starts drawing more electricity than the system allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are
drawing from the grid that it is entirely likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This "averaging" works in a similar fashion on the supply side of
the grid. Individual wind turbines average out each other in electricity supply. n18 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through
another.
Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability
because it is unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time. Furthermore, when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive conventional
power plants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components, arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure. n19 Analysts already confirmed the
benefit of wind power's greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota [*7]
concluded that "wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability" by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages. n20
Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy.
The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $ 150 to 400 billion every
year. n21 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $ 119 billion, or forty-four percent of all electricity sales in 1995. n22

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted


RPS Aff 38
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


However, to
capture such benefits, renewable energy technologies must be spatially deployed in every state and must have
national penetration rates above ten percent. Penetration rates of renewable energy technologies nationwide are still low--around three percent of overall
installed electricity capacity in 2007. Collective state efforts are expected to increase this amount to only around four percent by 2015 and five percent by 2030, but the
environmental benefits of renewable energy only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate. Federal
intervention in the form of a nation-
wide SBC or RPS aiming for targets of ten to twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies used to access
renewable resources.
IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY
Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of generators not
only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power outages and failure,
or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's
power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as
they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and San
Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation
Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24
Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people
with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated
assault on the electric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole."
n26
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their operational
efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged
industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts
inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27
Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity
generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much
more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because
attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing
energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents
and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other
forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A
national RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure
by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.
PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS
Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "free-riding" going
on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined
that only "the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities." n30
Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source
of electricity in Florida, New York, and Hawaii. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several
regions of the United States.
[*8] Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts
associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors. n31 In Oregon, the Governor's Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide
RPS by 2025 and projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power. n32 Environment
Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal
facilities. n33
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, only large-scale renewable energy penetration rates
would avoid many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion,
and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, federal promotion of renewable
energy would substantially decrease air pollution in the United States. A single one MW wind turbine running at only thirty percent of capacity for one year displaces more than
1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury emissions. n34
One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced
hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. n35 The study estimated that the wind farm would
displace more than twenty-four billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide over the course of its twenty-year lifetime--enough to cover
the entire city of Oakland, California in a pile of toxic pollution forty-stories high. n36
Renewable energy technologies possess an even greater ability to mitigate climate change. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon
emissions are included, coal plants are around ten times more carbon intensive than solar technologies and more than forty times more carbon intensive than wind technologies.
Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind. n37 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable
energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a twenty percent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020--a reduction of fifteen percent below "business as usual" levels, or the
equivalent to taking nearly seventy-one million automobiles off the road. n38
These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country's annual emissions of CO[2] between
4.4 million and 6.7 million tons. Renewable
technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now
views renewable energy as "the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO[2] reduction targets." n40

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted


RPS Aff 39
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS 1AC – Solvency


CONCLUSION
Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose national promotion on renewable energy, repeating
myths that have long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a diminishing series of canards that mischaracterize a national SBC
or RPS as an unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. Forgetting that a
majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own
clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing, and sometimes irrational mess of mandates, opponents churn out four war-torn myths every
time the issue is considered:
The first criticism is that a national SBC or RPS would create "winners and losers." In reality, all states have renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the
current system of state mandates, some states are "losers" by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in other states. Other states are victims to inconsistencies between state
mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their cheap in-state renewable electricity in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable
energy credits. A national mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to
purchase renewable energy credits or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive.
The second criticism is that a national mandate would increase electricity rates. However, in most states, renewable [*9] energy mandates have not
significantly increased rates and a consensus of economic models predict that a national policy would generate substantial
consumer savings over the existing patchwork of state programs. By expanding the amount of energy that would offset gas-fired generation, a
federal intervention would reduce demand on a strained and volatile natural gas market. Renewable energy units with markedly
faster lead-times than conventional and nuclear reactors speeds the cost recovery of critical transmission investments and reduces the rate increases needed to pay
for new transmission.
Another common criticism is that a federal mandate would harm the utilities sector in the form of future profits they will not be able to recover from consumers through higher
electricity rates. For policymakers, balancing utility profits with electricity prices is one of the hard decisions we elect them to make. However, elected officials should consider
that utility claims of lost profit are short-sited and strategically unsound. In reality, a more predictable regulatory environment decreases utility litigation and compliance costs
relative to a growing tangle of vague and unstable state mandates. Expanding the universe of eligible renewable resources and establishing clear, uniform trading rules creates far
more flexibility for regulated utilities and rewards utility investments on the basis of smart market strategy. By
promoting a robust domestic renewable energy
manufacturing sector, a national mandate reduces the costs utilities pay in unfavorable exchange rates for foreign parts and
labor and redirects those investments to the U.S. labor market.
A final criticism is that a national RPS or SBC would promote only least-cost options such as wind turbines and landfill gas generators (and not solar photovoltaic, solar thermal,
small-scale hydroelectric, and geothermal plants). Existing state programs, however, reveal that mandates with broad qualifying resource eligibility actually have led to the
development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable
resources that best match their service areas. By
geographically and monetarily expanding the market for renewable resources, a national
RPS is likely to further diversify the deployment of renewable energy technologies. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop
than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydroelectric power may be cheaper than solar. In the Southeast, biomass may be the most affordable. A national RPS mandate
with a fuel-based definition of eligible renewable resources ensures that free market principles, rather than regulatory set-asides or political patronage, determine which
technologies will be most cost competitive in certain areas of the country. An added bonus is that a
national RPS decreases compliance costs for regulated
utilities, since a technology-neutral mandate allows utilities to meet RPS obligations using the technology that is most cost
competitive for the fuels available.
Ultimately, by establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national SBC or RPS can create a more just and predictable regulatory environment for
utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. By
offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with
conventional and nuclear power, a federal action would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting
human health and the environment at a scale and magnitude not possible with state programs.
RPS Aff 40
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Coal Consumption Increasing


Demand and consumption of coal continues to increase

Hall & Kirkham, 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP
(Richard R. Hall and John S. Kirkham, The Enterprise Newspaper, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay,” 6-1-2007,
www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP

Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources were
going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions, the use of
coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected
to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand,
and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the
United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute
half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with
electrical generation.
The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the
environmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in the
development of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation for
decades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and
jeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are
affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and development for clean coal
technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy sources.
RPS Aff 41
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use


RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land


• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.
In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS
would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like
Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11

Renewables are key to reduce harmful environmental impacts of coal use and production

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK

D. Environmental and public health benefits


Electricity use has a significant impact on the environment and public health. Electricity accounts for less than 3 percent of
U.S. economic activity, yet the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power currently accounts for more than 26 percent of
smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO2
emissions. Increased renewable energy use can help reduce these harmful emissions, or reduce the cost of complying with
pollutant reduction requirements. And by reducing the need to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS
would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural resources for future generations.
RPS Aff 42
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Renewables Conserve Water


A national RPs will conserve and protect water resources

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Renewables Save Water


By promoting wind, solar, and other renewable resources that do not consume or withdraw water, a national RPS can help
conserve this dwindling essential resource. In a 2006 report, the Department of Energy acknowledged wind power and solar
photovoltaics could play a key role in averting a “business-as-usual scenario” where “consumption of water in the electric
sector could grow substantially.”264
A recent DOE report noted that “greater additions of wind to offset fossil, hydropower, and nuclear assets in a generation
portfolio will result in a technology that uses no water, offsetting water-dependent technologies.”265 Ed Brown, director of
Environmental Programs at the University of Northern Iowa, estimated that a 100-watt solar panel would save approximately
2,000 to 3,000 gallons of water over the course of its lifetime. Similarly, Dr. Brown concluded that “billions of gallons of
water can be saved every day” through the greater use of renewable energy technologies.266
The American Wind Energy Association conducted one of the most comprehensive assessments of renewable energy and
water consumption. Their study estimated that wind power uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity
produced as does nuclear, 1/500 as much as coal, and 1/250 as much as natural gas (small amounts of water are used to clean
wind and solar systems).267
In short, by displacing centralized fossil fuel and nuclear generation, a national RPS conserves substantial amounts of water
that would otherwise be withdrawn and consumed for the production of electricity. // pg. 101-102

Renewables will dramatically decrease water use

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

• Renewable energy offsets nuclear power.


Studies from Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon found that renewable generation displaces new nuclear reactors and
decreases the mining of uranium.
• A national RPS saves billions of gallons of water.
Conventional and nuclear power plants will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than America’s
farmers use for all the irrigated agriculture in the entire nation (over 3.3 billion gallons each day).
A nuclear reactor requires 600 times as much water to generate the same amount of electricity as a wind farm. A coal-fired
plant uses 500 times as much water as a wind farm; A gas-fired plant uses 250 times as much. A single 100-watt solar panel
saves up to 3,000 gallons of water over its lifetime. // pg. 12
RPS Aff 43
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Conventional Energies Pollute Water


Conventional energies produce toxic sludge that pollutes water source

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Toxic Waste Water


America’s 600 coal and oil-fired power plants produce more than one hundred million tons of sludge waste every year.
Seventy six million tons of these wastes are primarily disposed on-site at each power plant in unlined wastewater lagoons and
landfills that are seldom fully monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. These wastes are highly toxic,
containing concentrated levels of poisons such as arsenic, mercury, and cadmium that can severely damage the human
nervous system.261
Nuclear facilities may be even worse. To produce fuel for nuclear reactors, uranium is often “leached” out of the ground by
pumping a water solution through wells to dissolve the uranium in the ore. The uranium is then pumped to the surface in a
liquid solution. About 20 such in-situ leach facilities operate in the United States.262
At the reactor site, electricity generation using nuclear technology creates waste water contaminated with radioactive tritium
and other toxic substances that can leak into nearby groundwater sources. In December 2005, for example, Exelon
Corporation reported to authorities that its Braidwood reactor in Illinois had since 1996 released millions of gallons
of tritium-contaminated waste water into the local watershed, prompting the company to distribute bottled water to
surrounding communities while local drinking water wells were tested for the pollutant. The incident led to a lawsuit by the
Illinois Attorney General and the State Attorney for Will County who claimed that “Exelon was well aware that tritium
increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the public of
their risk of exposure.”263 // pg. 100-101
RPS Aff 44
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Fossil Fuel Production Destorys Environment


Independently, the production of fossil fuels destroys the environment in several different ways

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

D. Fuel Production Impacts


In addition to the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel combustion, the
production of fossil fuels and uranium – the drilling, mining,
processing and transportation – produces a substantial amount of pollution and toxic waste. In the United States, there are more than
150 refineries, 4,000 offshore platforms, 410 underground gas storage fields, 125 nuclear waste storage facilities, 160,000
miles of oil pipelines, and1.4 million miles of natural gas pipelines. Each can degrade their surrounding environment and
negatively impact the health and safety of Americans.308
Oil and Gas Drilling
The United States Geological Survey estimated that there are more than two million oil and natural gas wells in the domestic U.S. The most intense areas of oil and gas production
are off the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and along the northern coast of Alaska.
Offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico chronically exposes aquatic and marine wildlife to low-level releases of many chemicals through
the discharge and seafloor accumulation of drilling muds and cuttings, as well as the continual release of low-levels of hydrocarbons around production platforms. These
chronic environmental perturbations and the biological exposures continue to threaten marine biodiversity over wide areas of the Gulf.310
Independent studies undertaken by three groups of ecologists and the National Academies of Science have concluded that arctic oil and gas production on the North Slope in
Alaska disrupts tundra surfaces and alters the hydrological processes of wetland ecosystems responsible for the spawning and development of wildlife. North Slope oil production
also undermines nutrient availability for tundra plants necessary for food, habitats, and land integrity, and prematurely thaws the ice and permafrost.311
Coal Mining
Coal extraction, processing, and transportation have a direct affect on water and land resources. Of the more than 1 billion tons of coal
mined in the United States annually, roughly 70 percent comes from surface mines.312
Mountaintop removal—a newer technique for mining coal that uses heavy explosives to blast away the tops of mountains—in the Appalachians has destroyed
streams, blighted landscapes, and diminished the water quality of rural communities.
Failing coal slurry impoundments, acid mine drainage, aquifer disruption, saline pollution from coal-bed methane recovery, and occupational safety and health hazards (including
mine-related deaths) are among the impacts of continued reliance on coal-fired electricity production.314
Coal Transportation
Most coal is transported an average distance of 500 miles before it is combusted in power plants.315 The safety of coal trucks is not a minor concern. Roadway fatalities are twice
as high on coal-hauling roads. Safety advocates in Kentucky have expressed concern with the operation of coal trucks within the state, which in one four-year period witnessed
more than 1 person killed each month by coal-hauling trucks.
Between 2000 and 2004, Kentucky documented 704 accidents involving coal trucks, resulting in the deaths of 53 people and the injury of more than 535.316
Natural Gas Storage
During the summer months, domestic natural gas production and imported natural gas far exceed demand, so excess supply is placed in large underground storage facilities.317
Around 400 natural gas storage facilities have been constructed in the United States, storing an estimated 8.25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The three principal types of
underground storage sites used are depleted oil and gas reservoirs, aquifers, and salt cavern formations.318
The DOE and energy companies spent an estimated $4 billion (in 2000 dollars) to create artificial caverns and salt domes below the surface to store oil.
Oil and natural gas storage facilities, in addition to significantly adding to the cost of natural gas and oil infrastructure, are susceptible to serious
accidents that can pollute the air and water of local communities. One report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory noted that leaks can
occur due to improper well design, construction, maintenance, operation.320 The report cautioned that leakage from natural gas storage structures can be especially hazardous
when they cause natural gas to migrate into drinking-water aquifers or escape to the surface, creating a “significant safety risk.” Leaked natural gas can significantly endanger life
and property, water resources, vegetation, and crops.321
Indeed, In January, 2001, hundreds of explosions rocked the Yaggy field—a natural gas salt formation storage site in Hutchinson, Kansas—when natural gas escaped from one of
the storage wells and erupted into a seven mile wall of fire (burning an estimated 143 million cubic feet of natural gas). Clean up for the disaster necessitated the construction of 57
new vent wells, extending a distance of more than 9 miles and devastating the local ecology.
Overpressurization (needed to enlarge gas bubbles and obtain higher delivery rates) is another main cause of leakage, as many underground natural gas storage projects tend to be
operated at pressures exceeding their original designs. Such leaks can become excessively costly: The Gulf South Pipeline Company’s Magnolia facility—a $234 million salt-
cavern facility—opened in 2003 only to permanently close a few months later after a well collapsed.323
Nuclear Waste Storage
The safetyand security of spent nuclear fuel remains a serious problem in the U.S. Nuclear reactor facilities are running out of
space to store nuclear waste, and Yucca Mountain—a federally funded permanent storage facility being built in Nevada—has only enough space for 63,000 tons.324
The Department of Energy has relied upon on-site storage as a stop-gap remedy until Yucca Mountain is finalized or the U.S. finds a long-term solution to nuclear waste. As a
result, by 2004, more than 49,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel was scattered in dry casks and storage pools in seventy different locations in the U.S. That amount is expected to more
than double to 105,000 tons by 2039. 325 // pg. 116-122
RPS Aff 45
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Land Use


Renewables use extensively less land

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

E. Land Use
Wind and Solar Uses Less Land
Recent advances in renewable energy technologies have made them much less land-intensive. In fact, the Worldwatch Institute recently
estimated that harnessing renewable energy for electricity production requires less land than conventional systems. The study noted that solar power plants that concentrate
sunlight in desert areas, for instance, require 2,540 acres per billion kWh. On a lifecycle basis, this is less land than a comparable coal or hydropower plant generating the
same amount of electricity.327 Similar projections from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrate that solar
and wind technologies use
extensively less land than conventional systems when their complete fuel cycles are considered.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that in open and flat terrain a largescale wind plant will require about 60 acres per MW of installed capacity (this drops
to as little as 2 acres per MW for hilly terrain). However, AWEA emphasizes that only 5 percent (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and
other equipment—95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching.329
At the High Winds Project in Solano, California, 8 different landowners host 90 separate 1.8 MW wind turbines that total 162 MW of electricity capacity, but are still able to use
almost all of the farmland around and between the turbines.
Using a conservative figure of 26 acres for each wind turbine, researchers from Oberlin College estimated that 40 square miles could support roughly 38,000 turbines producing 3-
4% of total US electric demand each year. The
actual footprint of these turbines would be roughly 10,000 acres, leaving the surrounding
990,000 acres of land either untouched or available for other uses. This figure beats both coal and natural gas in terms of total land use.330
NREL estimates that solar PV could supply every kilowatt-hour of our nation’s current electricity requirements with modules on only 7% of the country’s available roofs,
parking lots, highway walls, and buildings without substantially altering appearances.
Solar PV requires even less new land. A PV system at the California Exposition Center in Sacramento, California, for example, fully integrates 450 kW of PV into
a parking lot. Indeed, NREL concluded that, “a world relying on PV would offer a landscape almost indistinguishable from the landscape we know today.”331
For example, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center at the University of San Diego School of Law recently estimated that the City of San Diego could construct 1,726 MW of solar
PV relying only on available roof area downtown.332 // pg. 123-125

Renewables reduce land use

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

• Renewable energies require less land then conventional power plants.


Including the land used for mining, transportation and generation, conventional coal-fired power plants use as much as 100
square kilometers of land for every GW of electricity generated.
Wind farms use up to 75% less land.
Over 95% of the land used for wind farms remains free for other uses like ranching and farming. Less than 40 square miles
could support 38,000 wind turbines producing up to 4% of the nation’s electricity demand each year.
Solar PV uses up to 90% less land.
America’s entire current electricity demand could be generated by installing PV panels on only 7% of the country’s available
roofs, parking lots, and highway retaining walls. // pg. 12
RPS Aff 46
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Air Pollution – 2AC


Conventional energy sources are the largest source of air pollution that kills 70,000 each year – a national RPS solves

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

C. Air Quality
Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and contribute to
global warming. In 2003, for example, fossil fuel use (for all energy sectors, not just electricity) was responsible for 99
percent of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 93 percent of its sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions, and 96 percent of
its nitrous oxides emissions (NOx).269
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the air pollution from conventional energy sources kills
between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans every year. These researchers found that the emissions from just 9 power plants in
Illinois directly contributed to an annual risk of 300 premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than 400,000 daily
incidents of upper respiratory symptoms among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants.271
Compiling data from the American Cancer Society, Harvard School of Public Health, and Environmental Protection Agency,
the Clean the Air Grassroots Network estimated that residents in every single U.S. state were at risk to premature death from
air pollution. 272
Children are particularly vulnerable to the pollution from fossil fuels. Because children spend more time outside and have
smaller airways that necessitate more rapid breathing, they are much more vulnerable to develop illnesses associated with air
pollution.273
By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, a national RPS would substantially
decrease air pollution in the U.S. A single 1 MW wind turbine running at only 30 percent of capacity for one year displaces
more than 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury
(Hg) emissions.274
One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco,
California, concluded that the turbines displaced hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have
otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. 275
The study estimated that the wind farm would displace more than 24 billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides,
particulate matter and carbon dioxide over the course of its 20-year lifetime — enough to cover the entire city of Oakland in a
pile of toxic pollution 40 stories high.276 // pg. 102-105

This terminally results in extinction

Driesen ’03 - Prof Law – Syracuse, (David, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, Fall, 2002/Spring ’03, “Sustainable
Development and Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies with Cleaner Alternatives” lexis)

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of
both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These
principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs [*27] that is worth achieving. Agenda 21,
in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable
development's meaning for air quality.
The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because
they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." n3 While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its
reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. n4 Since air pollution
damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. n5
RPS Aff 47
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Coal Casues Acid Rain


Coal emits the most SO2 and NOx

EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002,
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) -CMM

Almost all of the electricity that powers modern life comes from burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and oil. acid
deposition is caused by two pollutants that are released into the atmosphere, or emitted, when these fuels are burned: sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Coal accounts for most US sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and a large portion of
NOx emissions. Sulfur is present in coal as an impurity, and it reacts with air when the coal is burned to form SO2. In
contrast, NOx is formed when any fossil fuel is burned.

Coal releases major amounts of CO2, SO2, NOx, and CO

UCS, 5 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Environmental impacts of coal power:


air pollution,” 8-18-05, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html) -CMM

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant
generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as
cutting down 161 million trees. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and
buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs. 500 tons of small airborne particles, which
can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. 10,200 tons of
nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone
(smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness. 720 tons
of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.> 220 tons of
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone. 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a
teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one
out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion. 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic
heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
RPS Aff 48
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – SO2 and NOxAcid Rain


Acid rain is caused by the release of SO2 and NOx

EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002,
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) –CMM

"Acid rain" is a broad term used to describe several ways that acids fall out of the atmosphere. A more precise term is acid
deposition, which has two parts: wet and dry. Wet deposition refers to acidic rain, fog, and snow. As this acidic water flows
over and through the ground, it affects a variety of plants and animals. The strength of the effects depend on many factors,
including how acidic the water is, the chemistry and buffering capacity of the soils involved, and the types of fish, trees, and
other living things that rely on the water. Dry deposition refers to acidic gases and particles. About half of the acidity in the
atmosphere falls back to earth through dry deposition. The wind blows these acidic particles and gases onto buildings, cars,
homes, and trees. Dry deposited gases and particles can also be washed from trees and other surfaces by rainstorms. When
that happens, the runoff water adds those acids to the acid rain, making the combination more acidic than the falling rain
alone. Prevailing winds blow the compounds that cause both wet and dry acid deposition across state and national borders,
and sometimes over hundreds of miles. Scientists discovered, and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric
power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal.
RPS Aff 49
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Acid Rain Impacts


Acid rain damages lakes, forests, and buildings

EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002,
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) -CMM

Effects of Acid Rain: Acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to damage of trees at high
elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates
the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our
nation's cultural heritage. Prior to falling to the earth, SO2 and NOx gases and their particulate matter derivatives, sulfates
and nitrates, contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health.

Acid rain hurts sugar maples which are the most economically and environmentally valuable trees in the Eastern US

NSF, 6 (National Science Foundation, “Acid Rain Causing Decline In Sugar Maples, Say Researchers,” 6/5/06,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060605081212.htm) –CMM

Acid rain, the environmental consequence of burning fossil fuels, running factories and driving cars, has altered soils and
reduced the number of sugar maple trees growing in the Northeast, according to a new study led by Cornell University
researchers. The sugar maple is the most economically valuable tree species in the eastern United States because of its high-
priced lumber, syrup and tourist-attracting fall colors. The study, whose lead author, Stephanie Juice '04, was an
undergraduate when the research was conducted, suggests that because acid rain makes the soil more acidic, unfavorable
conditions are created for sugar maples. In acidic soils, sugar maples produce fewer seedlings that survive and mature, and
more adult trees die, the researchers found. They drew these conclusions after adding nutrients to soil in a test plot and
reproducing the favorable soil conditions that existed prior to 20th century industrial pollution. The result: Sugar maples on
the plot rebounded dramatically. The study provides "the most conclusive evidence to date" that the decline of sugar maples
is linked to the effects of acid rain produced by human activity, said Timothy Fahey, professor of forest ecology at Cornell
and co-author of the study, which is published in the May issue of Ecology. Juice wrote the main part of the paper as part of
her senior thesis. "The research addresses how a long-term, human-caused change in the environment is affecting sugar
maples, which are valuable both ecologically and economically as one of the dominant species in our region," said Juice, who
now works for the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Milbrook, N.Y., as a project assistant and is applying to the Peace Corps
for next year. The research was conducted at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF), a 3,160-hectare reserve near
North Woodstock, N.H., where scientists have measured soil composition for the past 50 years. The scientists added nutrients
in a test plot to replicate soil conditions that existed prior to the loss of sugar maples over the past 25 years. Nitric and
sulphuric acid in acid rain leaches calcium from the soil. Calcium is the second most abundant plant nutrient (after nitrogen).
In addition, the loss of calcium leads directly to more acidic soils. When soils become too acidic, such trees as sugar maples
become stressed and have a harder time growing or producing seeds and seedlings. "Because of the detailed measurements
for the last 50 years, we know almost exactly how much calcium was removed by acid rain," said Fahey. "Our treatment was
designed to replace just that amount of calcium to bring the system to what it was like prior to the acid rain era." The study
used two 10-hectare (25-acre) watersheds. On one 25-acre site, a calcium-rich mineral called wollastonite was spread in
pellet form by helicopter in October 1999. The other site served as a control. While the pellets dissolve slowly over five to
10 years, the researchers were surprised to find that by summer 2002, the soil acidity in both the top and lower layers of the
test plot neutralized from being highly acidic to more acceptable levels for sugar maples. The researchers also found that by
the second year, calcium levels in the maples' leaves had risen. Acid rain also increases levels of the trace nutrient
manganese in the soil, which can be toxic to trees in higher doses. By year four and five, manganese in the leaves had
declined to healthier levels. In addition, seed production and the density and size of sugar maple seedlings all increased in the
few years following treatment, compared with the untreated neighboring plot.
RPS Aff 50
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – RPS Solves Acid Rain


A national RPS is key to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions that destroy streams, lakes and kill fish

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) and Nitrous Oxide (NOx)


Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a pollutant responsible for lake- and forest-damaging acid precipitation and a precursor to health-
damaging particulates. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that roughly 40 million Americans
lived in areas with unhealthy levels of SO2. 277
Nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions react with volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere (gasoline vapors or solvents, for
example) and produce compounds that can result in severe lung damage, asthma, and emphysema, if inhaled.278
NOx is also a major source of ground-level ozone (smog) and contributed to acid rain, and pollution of surface water.279 In
2003, the EPA estimated that more than 70 million Americans lived in areas with unhealthy deposits of NOx.
Emissions of SO2 and NOx create further problems when they react together in the atmosphere to form compounds that are
transported long distances and induce acidification of lakes, streams, rivers, and soils.280 Many parts of the country
(especially the Ohio Valley and mid-Atlantic states) have hazardous concentrations of sulfur and nitrogen deposits. 281
Acid rain from SO2 and NOx compounds can render many bodies of water unfit for certain fishand wildlife species. Acidic
deposition can also mobilize toxic amounts of aluminum, increasing its availability for uptake by plants and fish that are then
ingested by humans.
Concern over the significant environmental impacts of SO2 and NOx led the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
implement a “cap-and-trade” system that limits the aggregate emissions of SO2 and NOx and distributing allowances to
regulated entities. Companies that reduce their emissions beyond the caps can sell allowances to other companies that have
not reduced their emissions enough under the existing caps. The EPA periodically reduces the emissions caps to ensure that
the total amount of pollution decreases over time.
While stricter environmental controls like the SO2 and NOx cap-and-trade system have helped to decrease power plant
emissions, in 2004 fossil fuel-fired plants in the U.S. still emitted nearly 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) (roughly
two-thirds of the nation’s entire output) and 4 million tons of nitrous oxides (NOx).
Despite the immense progress made under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA noted in 2003 that surface water
sulfate concentrations have actually increased in the Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces of Virginia and that some parts of the
Northern Appalachian Plateau region continue to experience dangerously high levels of stream acidification.284
By mandating a higher penetration of renewable generation, a national RPS should empower regulators to expedite SO2 and
NOx cap reductions while still maintaining the market-based capand- trade system that has proved marginally successful at
reducing power plant emissions over the past 15 years.
Mercury (Hg)
A comprehensive EPA study on mercury noted that epidemics of mercury poisoning following high-doses in Japan and Iraq
have demonstrated that neurotoxicity is of greatest concern when mercury exposure occurs to the developing fetus. Dietary
mercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the brain; it also readily passes
through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.285
Most Americans do not ingest mercury directly, but accumulate small amounts of the poisonous metal through the
consumption of fish. In 2003, 43 states had to issue mercury advisories to warn the public to avoid consuming contaminated
fish from in-state water sources.286
The EPA estimates that as many as 3 percent of women of child-bearing age eat sufficient amounts of fish to be at risk from
mercury exposure. Conventional power plants are responsible for nearly one third of all U.S. emissions of mercury.287
In 2004, for example, U.S. coal-fired power plants alone released about 100,000 lbs. of mercury into the nation’s air. The
greatest concentrations of these emissions were found in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio River valley, the Northeast and
scattered areas in the South. However, the most elevated concentrations were found in the Miami and Tampa areas. 289 // pg.
105-110
RPS Aff 51
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Health Impact


Coal causes massive pollution leading to global warming, environmental damage, public health crises, and fetal death.

Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN
ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis
academic., lexis academic.]

The casus belli for such outside action is the fact that the government's pricing figures neglect to factor in the full costs of
fossil fuel production, including environmental and health costs that are not passed onto consumers directly in their utility
bill.65 For example, utility companies do not have to account for the consequences of approximately six billion metric tons
per year of carbon dioxide emissions, a total that will increase to nearly eight billion metric tons per year by 2030, a twenty-
five-year increase of about 30%.66 Nor is a financial charge indexed to other consequences of fossil fuel burning. Increases
in the emission of sulfur, methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, and other
particulate matter wreak havoc on human and natural habitats alike by causing things like acid rain, urban ozone (caused
primarily by nitrous oxide emissions, resulting in respiratory problems in humans), and global climate change.67 Among
fuels used for electricity generation, coal is by far the largest producer of these emissions, producing far beyond its
proportional market share.68 While coal-based power is seen to be the least expensive source of electricity on the market
today,69 the market dynamics that favor coal are substantially flawed.70
The indirect costs associated with the production of electricity from coal are simply staggering.71 During the mining stage
land is permanently damaged, air and water sources are contaminated, ground subsidence causes surface collapses, and
workers can be injured or killed.72 During processing and utilization, heavy metal and acid is given off, and particulate
matter, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere, causing seemingly immeasurable
damage and destruction to public and private property, wildlife, and public health.73
Every year, the more than 600 coal-burning plants in the United States74 emit more than 98,000 pounds of mercury into the
air75 while creating another 81,000 pounds of mercury pollution from fly ash and scrubber sludge76, all after 20,000 pounds
of mercury is released in preburning "cleaning" procedures-totaling 200,000 pounds.77 That mercury, along with arsenic,
cadmium, and other heavy metals, seeps out during the coal-burning process and travels either directly through ground water
and airborne particles, or indirectly through the food chain (often through fish), to humans.78 Mercury, even in small doses,
is converted easily through human metabolism into the neurotoxin methylmercury.79 The result of the contamination is that
one out of every six women of childbearing age may have enough of a concentration of mercury to permanently
damage a developing fetus, meaning 630,000 babies a year born in the United States (out of 4 million) are at risk for
severe neurological consequences as a result of gestational mercury poisoning.80 Coal also causes nearly 554,000 asthma
attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year.81 Not surprisingly, proximity to
coal-burning facilities increases the likelihood that a person becomes one of the 23,600 deaths every year attributed to power
plant pollution,82 each death taking an average of fourteen years off normal life expectancy.83 All told, the health care costs
caused by plant emissions total an estimated $160 billion annually. 84 Other grisly consequences from living near coal
burning include a high rate of stomach cancer,85 autism in children (for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released in a Texas
county, autism rates rose 17%),86 and pneumoconiosis in coal miners (also known as "black lung disease").87
Environmentally, the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant.88 For instance,
according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is between $10.39 and
$11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $0 and $4.50 per million Btu.89 Absent any
consideration of climate change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of private costs range from about 40%
to 275%."90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum, and 14% to 17% for nuclear. 91 Another
set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource,"92 and that at a price of $30 per ton
would carry with it external costs of almost $160 without including climate change risks which would bring costs to $190 per
ton.93 While monetizing the total social and environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal
link between polluting fuels and resulting externalities is undeniable.94
Despite arguments and economic models that show wide-ranging and heavy social costs to fossil fuel burning, and in
particular coal consumption, unless and until the industries themselves are compelled to account for these costs, investment
will remain high in traditional energy sources.95 Alternatives, still too underdeveloped as a whole to compete with the
infrastructure96 and reliability of fossil fuels,97 will need time and money to make up the difference.98 With technological
advances in turbine design reducing the levelized cost of output," and not reliant on fossil fuel burning like biomass
power,100 wind energy has the best chance of all truly clean energy sources to make the most immediate and long-lasting
impact on the electricity market.101
RPS Aff 52
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Global Warming – 2AC


CO2 emissions from electricity generation is the single largest contributor to global warming – a national RPS is key
to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Other Greenhouse Gases (GHG)


In its most recent report released on April, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a forum made up of thousands of the world’s top climate scientists
—concluded that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will contribute directly to global:
• Changes in the distribution, availability, and precipitation of water, resulting in severe water shortages for millions of people.
• Destruction of ecosystems, especially the bleaching of coral reefs and widespread deaths of migratory species.
• Complex, crop productivity and fishing impacts.
• Damage from floods and severe storms, especially among coastal areas.
• Deaths arising from changes in disease vectors and an increase in the number of heat waves, floods, and droughts.298
Policymakers should not underestimate the impacts of global warming for the United States. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimates that, in the Southeast and
southern Great Plains, the financial costs of climate change could reach as high as $138 billion by 2100. Indeed, Pew researchers warn that “waiting until the future” to address
global climate change might bankrupt the U.S. economy.299
Yet carbon-intensive fuels continue to dominate electricity generation in the United States. By 2005, almost 90 percent of the
country’s greenhouse gas emissions were energy-related, with the electric utility industry outpacing all other sectors (including
transportation) with 38 percent of national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. emitted 2.25 billion metric tons of C02 in 2003, more than 10 times the amount of C02
compared to the next-largest emitter, iron and steel production.301
Put simply, of all U.S. industries, electricity generation is—by substantial margins—the single largest contributor of the
pollutants responsible for global warming.
In 2004, almost every state in country was home to at least one power plant with significant C02 emissions.
Nuclear energy is not much of an improvement, despite recent claims by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) that nuclear power is “the Clean Air Energy.” Reprocessing and
enriching uranium requires a substantial amount of electricity, often generated from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Data collected from one uranium enrichment company alone
revealed that it takes a 100- megawatt power plant running for 550 hours to produce the amount of enriched uranium needed to fuel a 1,000 megawatt reactor (of the most efficient
design currently available) for one year.302 According to the Washington Post, two of the nation’s most polluting coal plants (in Ohio and Indiana) produce electricity exclusively
for the enrichment of uranium.303 Because uranium enrichment consumes so much electricity derived from fossil fuels, many nuclear
power plants contribute indirectly, but substantially, to global climate change and do virtually nothing to end U.S. dependence on
foreign oil.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon emissions are included, coal plants are around 10 times more carbon
intensive than solar and more than 40 times more carbon intensive than wind. Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as
solar and 20 times as carbon intensive as wind.304 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
20 percent RPS would reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020—a reduction of 15 percent below “business as usual” levels, or the
equivalent to taking nearly 71 million automobiles off the road.305
These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country’s annual emissions of CO2 by between
4.4 million and 6.7 million tons. Renewable
technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now
views renewable energy as “the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO2 reduction targets”.307 // pg. 112-116

*** Insert Warming Bad Impact ***


RPS Aff 53
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals


Conventional energy sources cause global warming and systemic deaths

Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and
Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

[*5] INTRODUCTION
Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and contribute to
global warming. For instance, emissions from just nine conventional power plants in Illinois directly contributed to 300
premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than 400 thousand daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms per year
among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants. n1 Moreover, fossil-fueled power plants in the United
States emitted 2.25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide ("CO[2]") in 2003, more than ten times the amount of CO[2]
compared to the next-largest emitter, iron and steel production. n2 Of all American industries, electricity generation is--by
substantial margins--the single largest contributor of the pollutants responsible for global warming.

Emissions are rising and electricity generation is the primary source

Butler, 8- founder and editor of Mongabay.com, a comprehensive environmental science website (Rhett, “U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions reach record high in 2007,” 5-21-08, http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html0) –CMM

Electricity generation continues to be the largest source of emissions in terms of primary energy consumption, followed by
transportation, and industrial, residential, and commercial use. Transportation emissions have grown at about the same rate as
electric power emissions since 1990, while direct-use emissions in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors have
remained relatively flat since 1990. In a hopeful sign, energy CO2 intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic
output) fell by about 0.5 percent as the economy expanded by 2.2 percent but emissions grew only 1.6 percent. Between 1990
and 2006, total greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP declined by 27.7 percent. Despite the gains in carbon intensity,
power generation became less efficient in 2007 due to a decline in the proportion of energy generated from hydroelectric
dams. Drier-than-normal conditions meant that power companies had to make up the shortfall by burning more natural gas
and coal. Overall emissions from the power sector rose 3 percent, while electricity generation rose 2.5 percent.

Electricity generation emits the most greenhouse gasses

EPA, 8 (Environmental Protection Agency, “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory,” 6-24-8,


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html) –CMM

The figure above illustrates the relative contribution of the direct greenhouse gases to total U.S. emissions for the period 1990-2006. The
primary greenhouse gas
emitted by human activities in the United States was carbon dioxide (CO2), representing approximately 85 percent of total
greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of CO2 was from the combustion of fossil fuels. Methane emissions, which have steadily declined since 1990, resulted
primarily from decomposition of wastes in landfills, natural gas systems and activities associated with domestic livestock. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil
fuel combustion were the major sources of nitrous oxide emissions. The emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, which are substitutes for ozone depleting substances, were the primary
component of fluorinated gas emissions. To compare and combine emissions of different greenhouse gases into a national total, EPA uses global warming potentials (GWPs).
The U.S. greenhouse gas inventory also
GWPs compare the radiative forcing or ability to trap heat of one metric ton of a greenhouse gas to a metric ton of CO2.
presents emissions by more commonly used economic categories: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industry,
residential and transportation. Using this categorization, emissions from electricity generation accounted for the largest portion of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. Transportation activities accounted for the second largest portion and emissions from industry comprised the third largest
portion. The agriculture, commercial and residential economic sectors, listed in descending order of their contribution, together account for the remaining U.S. greenhouse gas
Electricity, though produced at power plants, is ultimately consumed in the other economic sectors. When emissions
emissions.
from electricity are distributed among these sectors, the industrial sector accounts for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions. Transportation remains the second largest contributor to emissions. Emissions from the residential and commercial sectors increase substantially due to their
relatively large share of electricity consumption (e.g., lighting, appliances, etc.), with agriculture consuming little electricity.
RPS Aff 54
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals


The electricity sector emits the most CO2 and would be the easiest sector to transition away from fossil fuels

Komanoff, 8 – director of the consulting firm Komanoff Energy Associates (Charles, “Whither Wind?” February/March
2007, http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-energy/2007-02-01/whither-wind.aspx) –CMM

Why Wind Farms?


Fighting fossil fuels, and machines powered by them, has been my life’s work. As an energy analyst, I can tell you that the
science on global warming is terrifyingly clear: To have even a shot at fending off climate catastrophe, the world must reduce
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at least 50 percent within the next few decades. If poor countries are to have any room to
develop, the United States — the biggest emitter by far — needs to cut back by 75 percent Although automobiles, with their
appetite for petroleum, may seem like the main culprit, the No. 1 climate change agent in the United States is actually
electricity. The most recent inventory of U.S. greenhouse gases found that power generation was responsible for a whopping
38 percent of CO2 emissions. Yet the electricity sector may also be the least complicated to make carbon free. Approximately
three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of
U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our ever-
expanding arrays of lights, computers and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the
country’s CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent.

Electricity generation produces the most greenhouse gasses

Casten, 8 – President & CEO of Recycled Energy Development, a company dedicated to the profitable reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. Past President/CEO of Turbosteam Corporation, and 2007 Chair of the US Combined Heat &
Power Association (Sean, “Beyond coal,” 6/5/08, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/4/123223/5089) –CMM

The Electric Sector's Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions


In the United States, coal is primarily a power plant fuel, and the electricity sector is our single biggest source of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, any discussion of greenhouse gas reduction must confront coal-based electricity. Figure 1
shows total US greenhouse gas emissions by sector, and Figure 2 shows how the electric sector has steadily increased its
share thereof. The trends seen in Figure 2 reflect our nation's steady and inexorable electrification -- first as we switched
from candles to electric light, then as we shifted away from mechanical power, then later as waves of computerization and air
conditioning enabled great leaps in our national standard of living. As we now shift from a manufacturing- to a service-
intensive economy, this trend will undoubtedly continue -- and so we will increasingly find that efforts to curtail greenhouse
gas emissions must focus on our electric sector. For rather perverse reasons, this is good news. The electric sector today is
only half as fuel efficient as it was in 1910, implying that we could cut CO2 emission from the electric sector in half and
lower electricity costs simply by deploying century-old technologies and regulatory models.
RPS Aff 55
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals


CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly—coal is a primary source

USA Today, 7 (Dan Verango, “Study: Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions soar,” 5/22/07,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm) –CMM

Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough, according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train
acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Fueled by rapid growth in coal-reliant China, rates of carbon dioxide
emission from industrial sources increased from 2000 to 2004 "at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s,"
says a report released by the journal Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences. Carbon dioxide, released when coal,
oil and natural gas burn, is a major "greenhouse gas," so named because it absorbs the sun's heat in the atmosphere. "We
have had rapid economic growth worldwide powered on traditional carbon-emitting sources," says study author Christopher
Field of the Carnegie Institution of Washington's branch in Stanford, Calif. The study compared Energy Department carbon
dioxide emissions numbers with economic growth figures from the International Monetary Fund and United Nations. The
figures show that "carbon intensity," roughly the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to produce something in an economy,
dropped worldwide after 1980. It shot up after 2000 in high-growth China and stalled elsewhere. "The report is saying that if
you wonder what side of global warming's effects — droughts, warming and others — we are going to get, a little or a lot, we
are going to get a lot," says Angela Anderson of the Washington, D.C.-based National Environmental Trust. In February, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a 7.2-degree rise in surface temperatures by 2100 if the world pursues
growth reliant on fossil fuels, producing more severe droughts, floods and heat waves. The study's real-world carbon dioxide
emissions rate exceeds the panel's assumptions. Carbon dioxide is responsible for about half of the 1-degree increase in
average surface temperatures attributable to human activities in the past century, the climate change panel says. Countries are
using more energy, and "no region is decarbonising its energy supply," the study says. "This should serve as a notice to the
global community that renewed and stronger efforts are necessary in this political, economic and scientific milieu," says
Robert Andres of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, who was not
part of the study. The results show that the world is burning more coal than ever. "Coal is abundant and cheap but much
dirtier than other fossil fuels," Field says.

The U.S. is the largest source of warming

NRDC, 7 (National Resources Defense Council, “Global Warming Basics,” 2-9-07,


http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp) –CMM

What country is the largest source of global warming pollution? The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent
of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest
share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly
America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are
well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.
RPS Aff 56
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Global Warming Solvency


The U.S. must take the lead in promoting climate change by utilizing clean energy resources

Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
(Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP

Over the next five decades, progress to meaningfully address the risk of significant climate change will require an estimated
80 percent - or greater - reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The United States and China together account for
almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions, so the work needs to begin here.
At the same time, no nation is better positioned to adopt a low-carbon energy diet than we are. The United States not only has
tremendous clean energy resources, but it has major companies looking to take advantage of a change in federal policy to
compete in the global clean energy economy. The United States must mobilize the world's largest R&D if we are to address
climate change.

RPS would make a significant impact on CO2 levels.

Durbin, 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William, E&E News PM
May 14, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions
reduction”, lexis, AG)

Monica Trauzzi: The study shows that a federal RPS would slow the rate of CO2 emissions growth in the power sector over
20 years.
William Durbin: That's correct.
Monica Trauzzi: But an RPS wouldn't significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. So does it make sense to put so much
focus on something that's not going to have a significant impact on emissions?
William Durbin: It is actually. I mean when we looked at the renewable portfolio standard we saw an overall decline in CO2
emissions of about 10 percent in 2020. That's an important number. That shows that renewables can deliver in helping to
bring down CO2 emissions. But what it also showed is renewables is not the only answer,that we're going to need a portfolio
approach and that's another key piece of information that comes out of this study. There is no one solution. Gas isn't going to
do it. Renewables isn't going to do it. It's going to take a whole slate of options to bring down CO2 emissions.
Monica Trauzzi: And the report does say that an RPS should be part of a large and complicated puzzle.
William Durbin: Yes.
RPS Aff 57
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Pollution & Greenhouse


RPS will reduce air pollution and greenhouse emissions

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

• A national RPS reduces air pollution.


Air pollution from conventional power plants kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans each year. A single 1 MW wind
turbine (operating at only 30% capacity) displaces 96 tons of nitrous oxides, 69 tons of sulfur dioxide and 1800 pounds of
toxic mercury during its 30-year lifespan.
• A national RPS reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Renewable energies could offset almost ½ ton of carbon dioxide for every MW generated. A 20% by 2020 national RPS
could reduce as much carbon dioxide as taking 71 million cars off the nation’s roads. // pg. 12

Renewable energy reduces air pollution, acid rain and greenhouse gases

Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP

Renewable Energy Technologies


Conventional energy sources based on oil, coal, and natural gas have proven to be highly effective drivers of economic
progress, but at the same time, they are highly damaging to the environment and human health. These traditional energy
sources are facing increasing pressure on a host of environmental fronts, with perhaps the most serious being the looming
threat of climate change and a needed reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, It is now clear that efforts to maintain
atmospheric [CO.sub.2] concentrations below even double the pre-industrial levels cannot be accomplished in an oil- and
coal-dominated global economy.
Theoretically, renewable energy sources can meet many times the world's energy demand. More important, renewable energy
technologies can now be considered major components of local and regional energy systems. Solar, biomass, and wind
energy resources, combined with new efficiency measures available for deployment in California today, could supply half of
the state's total energy needs. As an alternative to centralized power plants, renewable energy systems are ideally suited to
provide a decentralized power supply that could help to lower capital infrastructure costs. Renewable systems based on
photovoltaic arrays, windmills, biomass, or small hydropower can serve as mass-produced "energy appliances" that can be
manufactured at low cost and tailored to meet specific energy loads and service conditions. These systems have less of an
impact on the environment, and the impact they do have is more widely dispersed than that of centralized power plants,
which in some cases contribute significantly to ambient air pollution and acid rain.
RPS Aff 58
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – U.S. Environmental Leadership Solves Globally


The plan solves the environmental harms internationally by expanding U.S. environmental leadership

Nye and Armitage, 07 – *dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government AND ** president, Armitage International
(Joseph and Richard, A SMARTER, MORE SECURE AMERICA, Report of the CSIS Commission on Smart Power
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf)

In response, American states and cities as well as countries around the world and a growing portion of the private sector are
taking action to re-duce their respective greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) while simultaneously calling for greater
commitments on the part of the U.S. government and other major rising emitters like China and India. Both the U.S.
government and industry are increasingly responding to these trends.
In the past year, there has been increasing awareness of how countries and companies view their own energy production and
use, as well as their environmental footprint. For instance, a July 2007 study by the National Petroleum Council (NPC),
which represents the major oil and gas industry perspective, was entitled Hard Truths: Facing the Hard Truths about Energy
and stressed the importance of energy efficiency and the development of alternative fuels as part of a multi-component
approach. New innovation on energy and climate is being spurred by state and local regulations and company anticipation of
government regulation on a national level.
Many companies are delaying investment in a variety of energy infrastructure projects, however, particularly in the power
generation sector. This is because of uncertainty over the sustained traction of climate policies emerging at the state and local
level and questions of whether and how soon affordable technology for providing low-carbon alternatives will come online.
Companies also are uncertain over the cost and regulatory approach associated with implementing carbon constraints, as well
as the risk of the emergence of future constraints. This delay in investment in infrastructure undermines the reliability of our
current energy supply.
A world operating on differing sets of rules or costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions could have disruptive
implications for trade, energy security, competitiveness, and economic growth. A world, however, that establishes a global
consensus on the cost of carbon could breathe life into new and emerging sectors of the economy, provide new avenues for
U.S. economic growth, and provide a platform for U.S. global leadership on a major issue of concern to the global economy.
U.S. leadership to shape a new energy frame-work in a carbon-constrained world offers a unique opportunity to alter the
geopolitics of energy, improve energy security, reinvigorate the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurialism, and engage
disenfranchised portions of the developing world.
RPS Aff 59
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Economy Ext – RPS Reduces FF Transportation Costs


National RPS will reduce fossil fuel transportation costs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

A National RPS Reduces Fuel Transportation Costs


By developing indigenous renewable resources, all regions also can enjoy substantial cost savings from decreased fossil fuel
transportation costs. The University of Wyoming estimates that up to 80 percent of the cost of coal for ratepayers in Illinois is
to cover railway costs. Coal at the mouth of a mine in Wyoming, for example, costs about $5 per ton. By the time it reaches a
power plant outside of Chicago, that same coal costs about $30 a ton.84
The cumulative costs to transport natural gas may be even higher. Natural gas transportation and distribution already account
for 41 percent of the residential price of natural gas. Since the construction of natural gas pipelines can cost as much as
$420,000 per mile85, fully constructing the natural gas infrastructure recommended by the Administration’s National Energy
Plan (which calls for over 301,000 miles of new natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines) could cost ratepayers as
much as $126.4 billion. 86 // pg. 44
RPS Aff 60
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link

( ) RPS will decrease regulatory compliance costs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

A National RPS Benefits Regulated Utilities


A national RPS decreases regulatory compliance costs by:
• Reducing the need for costly litigation to clarify vague and competing state regulations
• Lowering the administrative costs associated with inconsistent state standards
• Making regulations more predictable to ease planning of resource investments
• Creating economies of scale that decrease the cost of renewable energy technologies
• Giving utilities greater flexibility in meeting RPS mandates by expanding the market of eligible renewable resources.
• Decreasing the cost of RECs by creating a uniform national market
• Encouraging the tracking of greenhouse gas emissions reductions before the implementation of a national carbon cap-and-
trade program // pg. 149

( ) RPS will reduce regulatory compliance costs

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

If the claimed benefits are accurate (and, as noted below, there are many who believe they are not), there are several ways in
which these benefits would be achieved. Probably the most obvious would be the potential environmental benefits. n49
Although electricity accounts for less than 3% of U.S. economic activity, "the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power
currently accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury
emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO<2> [*57] emissions." n50 One expert has asserted that if "20 percent of
our electricity in 2020 were to be provided by renewables, then we would be displacing the equivalent of 71 million cars
from the nation's highway." n51 Others have noted that the increased use of renewable energy would reduce harmful
emissions or reduce the cost of compliance with requirements to reduce pollution. n52 "And by reducing the need to extract,
transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural
resources for future generations." n53

A federal RPS is critical to reduce the compliance costs of coming cap and trade legislation

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis, AG)

Congressional leaders have expressed a strong interest in adopting a mandatory carbon reduction policy, and even most utility
executives believe that they will have to implement carbon reductions. Yet in response to higher natural gas prices and
increasing energy demand in recent years, more than 150 new coal-fired power plants have been proposed throughout the
U.S.-none of which include plans to capture and store their carbon emissions. As a result, these plants will expose their
owners, power purchasers, and customers to the risk of future price increases from CO2 regulation or installing equipment to
reduce emissions that could be avoided by investing in renewable energy instead. Indeed, under an economy-wide cap-and-
trade approach, the carbon reductions from increasing renewable energy could save money. A 2001 analysis by EIA of a bill
proposing to cap four power plant pollutants, including CO2, found that the addition of a 20 percent RPS to the cap-and-trade
scenario reduced cumulative compliance costs $72 billion by 2020.
RPS Aff 61
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link


Regulations on businesses increase the cost of goods, undermine businesses and the economy, and kill competitiveness.

SBAC, 6 (Small Business Action Committee, “Reforming Regulations,” 12/24/06,


http://www.sbaction.org/issues/issue.php?id=ja5gmj_pii1s, AG)

Regulations placed on the business community as a whole and individual businesses lead to increased costs on goods and
services and can help to undermine certain businesses and the economy. That is not to say that some regulation is necessary.
However, excessive regulation is costly and can hurt competitiveness.

Regulations on businesses increase the cost of goods, undermine businesses and the economy, and kill competitiveness.

SBAC, 6 (Small Business Action Committee, “Reforming Regulations,” 12/24/06,


http://www.sbaction.org/issues/issue.php?id=ja5gmj_pii1s, AG)

No study on small business regulatory costs has been conducted in California. The U.S. Small Business Administration has
been analyzing costs of federal regulations since 1995. The update issued on September 19, 2005, found that "small
businesses continue to bear a disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden."
The report noted that the costs of federal regulations on firms with fewer than 20 employees is $7,647. For small
manufacturers this figure is at least double the compliance cost for medium-sized and large firms.
SBAC has set regulatory reform as a high priority and will monitor and assist in the study and its recommendations.
RPS Aff 62
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Steel Industry Addon – 2AC


Natural gas prices will collapse the steel industry
Peterson, 4 – Pennsylvania 5th District Representative
[John Peterson, Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture, and Technology, “The Impact of High Natural Gas Prices on Small
Farmers and Manufacturers,” September 22,
http://republicans.smbiz.house.gov/hearings/databaseDrivenHearingsSystem/displayTestimony.asp?hearingIdDateFormat=040922&testimo
nyId=233] // LDK

you can't mention higher natural gas prices without thinking of its impact on the steel industry. The dumping of
And Mr. Chairman,
foreign steel into our markets has put American steel makers in a very precarious situation - and high natural gas prices only
make things more difficult. For example, despite the Jersey Shore Steel Company's efforts to modernize their manufacturing process, natural gas prices that have
increased as much as 168% over the previous years have resulted in price increases that resulted in major losses in business for
this small company. Within the last year, Jersey Shore Steel has had to lay off 70 employees due to business conditions - employees who were once making $18 per hour.

The steel industry is key to US hegemony and economic primacy.


AISI 4 [American Iron and Steel Institute, “A Strong U.S. Steel Industry: Critical to Protecting U.S. Infrastructure, Homeland Security and Economic
Security,” 9-2-4, www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Trade2&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=18271] // LDK

Steel is an important jobs issue; it is also an important national security issue. I am here to trumpet one of the great values of
"
America. That's the enterprise of the American worker, the hardworking American citizens who make this economy go. And those are the steelworkers of America. I appreciate what you do for our
country." President George W. Bush, August 26, 2001
steel and national security go hand in hand. The North American Security and Prosperity Partnership
The President and many other U.S. government leaders recognize that
Given the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the
(SPP), in the first Ministerial “Report to Leaders” (June 2005), identifies steel as a “strategic” industry.
subsequent global war on terror, the importance of a strong and viable American steel industry to U.S. national infrastructure,
homeland security and economic security cannot be overstated.
It is vital to U.S. national economic security and to our homeland security that America does not become dangerously
dependent on offshore sources of supply for:
The steel that goes into our energy infrastructure such as petroleum refineries, oil and gas pipelines, storage tanks, electricity
power generating plants, electric power transmission towers and utility distribution poles;
The steel that goes into our transportation security infrastructure such as highways, bridges, railroads, mass transit systems,
airports, seaports and navigation systems;
The steel that goes into our health and public safety infrastructure such as dams and reservoirs, waste and sewage treatment facilities, the public water supply system and, increasingly, residential construction;
The steel that goes into our commercial, industrial and institutional complexes such as manufacturing plants, schools, commercial buildings, chemical processing plants, hospitals, retail stores, hotels, houses of
worship and government buildings.
In the above context, this paper provides a summary and enhancement of a December
2001 report prepared by America’s steel-producing community, entitled “A Strong U.S.
Steel Industry: Critical to National Defense and Economic Security.” It is submitted here in connection with the revised draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). This paper covers: the role played
by steel in all its forms in homeland security and economic security; the nation’s increased need for steel to bolster our homeland security and economic security; and the role that domestically produced steel
must play to meet our overall security objectives.
we are justifiably concerned about the security of the physical underpinnings of our society, especially its
In the wake of September 11,
essential infrastructure. Virtually all elements of this infrastructure -- energy, transportation, health, public safety and buildings -- are dependent upon steel
for their construction and security. The importance of a strong and viable domestic steel industry to U.S. national economic
security and to our homeland security is clear.
The September 11 attacks on the United States illustrate that (1) steel will be needed to “harden” existing
U.S. infrastructure and installations and (2) a strong and viable domestic steel industry will be needed to provide immediate steel deliveries when and where required. We need only consider the potential
difficulties that the U.S. would face in defending, maintaining and rebuilding vital infrastructure in an environment where our nation is largely dependent upon offshore sources for steel. If the U.S. were to
become even more dangerously dependent upon offshore sources of steel, we would experience sharply reduced security preparedness in the face of:
Highly variable, and certainly higher, costs;
Uncertain supply, impacted by unsettled foreign economies;
Quality, design and performance problems;
Inventory problems, long lead times and extended construction schedules.
In this submission, we will examine U.S. infrastructure, segment by segment, all of which are highly steel-intensive. We will cite specific examples of our infrastructure need, the importance of steel as a
material to this need and the importance of a strong and viable domestic steel industry to meet this need.
Even prior to September 11, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that $1.3 trillion would be needed through 2005 alone for major infrastructure improvements in The United States. The situation
has likely worsened since publication of the figures below. According to authoritative government and consuming industry studies:
25 percent of U.S. bridges are currently either structural deficient or obsolete, so roughly 150,000 of our nation’s bridges will need to be modernized and rebuilt;
27 percent of America’s highways are judged to be poor-to-mediocre, so more than a quarter of the U.S. highway system will need to be rebuilt and upgraded;
21 percent of U.S. rail track is rated as “less than good,” so more than a fifth of our nation’s railway system will need to be better maintained or rebuilt; 30 percent of U.S. airport runways are classified as
“needing repair,” so nearly a third of our nation’s airport runways will require upgrading.
Our country depends upon a healthy American steel industry to meet these and other growing U.S. demands for steel-intensive infrastructure. Engineers and contractors on sophisticated infrastructure projects
U.S. national
require an uninterrupted supply of quality steel that they can trust to meet the performance characteristics of their project’s design, delivered on time and at a competitive cost.
economic security requires a strong and viable domestic steel industry to meet all these criteria on a consistent plate steel in
wide and very heavy gauges. Prompt and effective maintenance and restoration of pipelines are vital to our national energy
security infrastructure and to our national economy
Electric power generation is an engine for our economy. Steel is not only present in the structures, but in the huge generators,
which use large quantities of sophisticated electrical lamination steel sheet, and in the boilers, pressure vessels and pipe that
is needed to produce basis. >>
RPS Aff 63
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing


Natural Gas prices are high and will continue to rise

The Durango Herald 8 [Katie Buford, “Report foresees natural-gas decline,” 4-29-08,
http://durangoherald.com/aspbin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080629_1.htm] //
LDK

In 2008, natural-gas prices are on the rise again. In June, Atmos Energy, which secures its supplies of natural gas from
producers months in advance, increased the price it charges customers by 25 percent.
Kevin Kerrigan, a spokesman for the company, said that normally the price it pays for gas declines after winter, but this year
has been an exception. The market price of natural gas in June was 72 percent higher than the same month a year before, he
said. This winter could be worse.
"It is not forecasted to come down," he said. Atmos shops around for its gas, which may or may not come from the San Juan
Basin.

Natural gas prices will continue to rise

FMNN 8 [Free Market Network Corporation, “Natural Gas Prices Set to Jump 52%,” 6-25-8,
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=58260] // LDK

The government released a short-term energy outlook last week, revising projections for natural-gas prices upward.
According to a report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas will cost a whopping 52% more this
year than last year.
Two months ago, the same forecast projected a 16.5% hike in the price of natural gas from last year, and last month, the
projection was a 35% increase. Natural gas spot prices averaged $7.17 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in 2007 and are now
expected to average more than $11 per Mcf in 2008 and 2009.

Coal and natural gas prices are on the rise

AP, 8 (“Why are electric rates rising?” 6-24-08, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=6225366) –CMM

Coal prices are rising because of growing demand and supply disruptions overseas. Natural gas prices are also on the
upswing due to concerns about supplies, which are below last year's levels, and declining production in the Gulf of Mexico,
according to analysts at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Many power companies are passing these higher fuel costs directly through
to consumers. "The cost of most fuels used in generating electricity has risen significantly since the beginning of the year,"
the Energy Department said in a recent report in which it predicted electricity prices will rise by 3.7 percent this year and 3.6
percent next year. Many analysts expect prices to rise more than that. Global Insight, an energy research firm, thinks rising
coal costs will boost electricity rates by 5.7 percent nationally this year, while Barry Bannister, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus,
says electric rates could jump as much as 69 percent by 2015.
RPS Aff 64
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing


Natural gas prices are at record highs – heat causing increased demand

EIA, 8 (Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Weekly Update,” 6/26/08,


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp) –CMM

Exceeding $12 per MMBtu in most parts of country, natural gas prices far surpass historical records for this time of year.
Along with the official start of the summer occurring this week, spot prices at the Henry Hub breached $13 per MMBtu for
the first time since December 2005 in the aftermath of the hurricane season that year. Increases in demand from electric
generators meeting air-conditioning demand have already occurred in the Southwest and part of the East Coast earlier this
month and are expected to expand as the summer proceeds. In addition to the increasing demand from hot temperatures
around the country, the elevated price level for natural gas currently appears related to growing financial investment in many
commodities, including metals, agricultural products and crude oil, resulting in steep prices increases. Since the beginning of
2008, the spot price at the Henry Hub has increased $4.93 per MMBtu, or 63 percent, to yesterday’s average of $12.76.
Nonetheless, with temperatures relatively moderate this week for the country as a whole and a decline in the price of crude
oil, the net change in the Henry Hub spot price this report week was a decrease of 17 cents per MMBtu. Other spot markets
along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and East Texas registered regional price decreases of $0.12 and $0.15 per MMBtu,
respectively. The average regional price yesterday was $12.79 and $12.53 in East Texas and Louisiana. Although
temperatures across the country have not yet reached summer peaks, rising temperatures in the Northeast likely supported
price increases in the region during the report week. The average price in the Northeast region yesterday was $13.65 per
MMBtu, which was 23 cents higher than the previous Wednesday. The Northeast has experienced the highest prices in the
country (outside Florida), owing in part to pipeline transportation costs for deliveries from the Gulf of Mexico region. Of the
18 trading days in June to date, the average price in the Northeast has fallen below $13 per MMBtu only twice. For the week,
the average spot price for delivery in New York off Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line (Transco Zone 6-NY) increased by $0.35
per MMBtu to $13.98, a premium of $1.22 per MMBtu to the price at the Henry Hub. In the Rockies region, the average
price yesterday was $10.35 per MMBtu, the lowest average regional price in the Lower 48 States as the region continues to
experience shut-in supplies caused by maintenance of infrastructure and related activities. Maintenance related to pipelines
serving the Opal processing plant in Wyoming has reduced pipeline capacity eastbound. The reduced supplies from this
maintenance, as well as other projects, lowered upstream prices in the Rockies, while increasing the value of Midcontinent
supplies during the week. The average price in the Midcontinent, which is located downstream of the Rockies producing
region as a result of the new Rockies Express Pipeline, increased 38 cents per MMBtu to $11.48. The pace of deliveries of
liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports remains considerably below last year’s volumes and now appears to have been less than
200 Bcf for the first half of the year, which is less than half of the approximately 460 Bcf received last year during the same
time period. LNG imports in June have averaged about 0.9 Bcf per day (based on sendout data from LNG import terminals),
which is significantly less than the average of 2.8 Bcf per day in June 2007. Most flexible LNG cargoes are heading to
Europe and Asia, where buyers continue to purchase LNG at prices higher than those that have prevailed in U.S. markets. At
the NYMEX, the price of the near-month contract (for July delivery) decreased 45.7 cents per MMBtu during the report week
to $12.753 as prices for competing products decreased and the weather outlook appeared to limit demand by electric power
generators in the near-term. The largest price movement of the week for the near-term contract occurred yesterday (June 25)
as the July contract lost approximately 26 cents per MMBtu. The downward price pressure appeared related to the crude oil
price, which decreased by $2.57 per barrel following the release of a market report by the Energy Information
Administration. Recent high natural gas prices extend throughout the forward curve, suggesting prices are expected to remain
elevated through at least the next winter heating season. At the end of trading yesterday, the 12-month strip, which is the
average for futures contracts over the next 12 months, was priced at $12.804 per MMBtu, a decrease of about 31 cents since
last Wednesday. Beginning with the July 2008 contract, futures prices increase steadily through the beginning of 2009. The
highest-priced contract in the futures strip is the January 2009 contract, which closed at $13.84 per MMBtu on June 25.
RPS Aff 65
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry


High gas prices are throttling the chemical industry—major companies are collapsing

AP 8 [Associated Press, James Prichard, “Dow Chemical raising prices by another 25 percent,” 6-25-8,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j06I8ZwwKqhAGklV0SAQAP8N8fjAD91GLKN01] // LDK

Shares of several chemical companies fell Tuesday after industry leader Dow Chemical Co. announced its second set of
wide-ranging price hikes in less than a month, again trying to offset record costs for energy and raw materials.
Midland-based Dow said it will raise the prices of its products by as much as 25 percent in July after implementing across-
the-board price increases of up to 20 percent on June 1.
The company makes everything from the propylene glycols used in antifreeze, coolants, solvents, cosmetics and
pharmaceuticals, to acrylic acid-based products used in detergents, wastewater-treatment and disposable diapers. Its products
are sold in 160 countries.
When Dow raises prices, the increase is felt across dozens of industries that buy its chemicals and plastics to manufacture
products ranging from diapers to automobiles.
Dow says it is trying to survive. Competitors such as Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Co. and Dallas-based Celanese
Corp. also have recently raised prices for their customers.
"We have to get them back to reinvestment levels where we can continue to build our business and to be there for the future,"
said Dow spokesman Chris Huntley.
The chemical maker's profit margins shrank from 9.8 percent in 2005 to 7.6 percent in 2006, and to 5.4 percent last year.
During the 12-month period that ended March 31, the margin narrowed to 5.1 percent, according to Capital IQ.
Dow said it's also adding a freight surcharge for North American customers of $300 per shipment by truck and $600 per
shipment by rail effective Aug. 1. Those surcharges will spread to other regions later this year.
Meanwhile, the company is idling or reducing production at some manufacturing plants and taking unspecified cost-cutting
measures at its automotive plants that have been hurt by a dreadful year for U.S. automakers.
The company had not yet worked out the details of its cost-cutting plan, Huntley said, "but it will certainly involve some
people reductions, it will involve looking at how we can reduce costs around facilities, overhead and the external spending
component."
Dow has automotive facilities in Michigan and throughout the United States, as well as overseas.
Chairman and Chief Executive Andrew Liveris said in a statement the steps are "extremely unwelcome but entirely
unavoidable" as global energy costs surge.
"The price increases we announced May 28 helped, but they were not enough to fully cover the additional costs we are now
facing," he said. "Even since our last announcement, the cost of hydrocarbons has continued to rise, and that trajectory shows
no sign of changing."

The chemical industry is collapsing now

Bloomberg 8 [Eric Martin, “U.S. Stocks Retreat on Economic Concern; UPS, Dow Chemical Drop,” 6-24-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ayaDSf13B7FA&refer=news] // LDK

U.S. stocks retreated to a three- month low after consumer confidence weakened and United Parcel Service Inc. said rising
fuel costs will reduce profit.
UPS, the biggest package shipment company, tumbled the most in almost two years after predicting second-quarter earnings
below analyst estimates. Dow Chemical Co., the largest U.S. chemical producer, slumped to the lowest since March as
Deutsche Bank AG cut profit estimates. Prospects that the worsening outlook for the economy may forestall interest-rate
increases helped financial shares rebound from the lowest level since 2003
RPS Aff 66
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry


High natural gas prices crush the petrochemical industry

Markey 8 – Director of Natural Gas Marketing at the Apache Corporation – [Michele Markey, Apache Corporation, “Topic
Report: U.S. Industrial Natural Gas Consumption,” 4-24-8
http://www.apachecorp.com/explore/explore_features/browse_archives/View_Article/?docdoc=698] // LDK

The consumption of natural gas in the industrial sector is sensitive to changes in overall economic activity in the U.S. This topic
report reviews the industrial sectors that consume the largest amounts of natural gas.
Federal Reserve Industrial Capacity Report:
industrial utilization, production and capacity indicates that industrial activity has slowed in
The Federal Reserve’s monthly report on
February. The capacity-utilization rate for total industry in fell 0.6 percent to 80.9, the lowest rate since November 2005. Manufacturing (i.e., manufacturing, logging and periodical industries) production
decreased 0.2 percent in February after having been unchanged in January. The factory-operating (i.e., made-in-factory facilities) rate fell 0.3 percent in February, to 79.3 percent, which is 0.5 percent below its
1972-2007 average. The production of durable goods moved down 0.4 percent. Large production declines were recorded in industrial sectors that consume large amounts of natural gas: wood products, primary
metals, motor vehicles and parts, furniture and related products.
Petrochemicals Sector:
As one of the largest consumers of natural gas in the industrial sector, the petrochemical sector has been a major beneficiary
of relatively flat natural-gas prices in 2007. There has been strong demand for agricultural chemicals and fertilizers due to the
growing world market for biofuels. Fertilizer prices have shot up by as much as 40 percent in the past year. Demand for fertilizer products
has come not only from the U.S., but also from countries such as India and China. However, commodity prices, including corn, dropped sharply last week. A longer-term correction in
agricultural commodity prices could curb farmers' profits and demand for fertilizers. A reduction in fertilizer consumption
could dampen demand for natural gas.

Natural gas prices are destroying the chemical industry

NYT 8 [Abha Bhattarai, “Dow Chemical Raises Prices for Second Time in a Month,” 6-25-8,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25dow.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214676643-
jmXFycd3OzMHdjyZexWkYQ] // LDK

The Dow Chemical Company said Tuesday that it was raising prices for the second time in a month to offset a “relentless rise” in
energy costs, a sign that companies may increasingly have to pass on price increases to their customers.
The increase of as much as 25 percent — the largest in the company’s history — comes after a 20 percent rise last month that the company
said did not go far enough given the continuing surge in energy prices.
Dow, which makes products ranging from pesticides to plastic wraps, also said it would impose freight surcharges of $300 for each truck shipment and $600 for each rail shipment beginning Aug. 1 in the
United States. In addition, it will scale back production in plants across North America and Europe.
Andrew N. Liveris, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said the changes were “extremely unwelcome but entirely unavoidable” as oil and natural gas continue to set records. Oil prices are up more
ural gas is up more than 70 percent this year.
than 40 percent this year and have risen $9 a barrel since Dow’s earlier price increase. Nat
“There came a point where the surge became so ridiculous that we had to raise prices,” Chris Huntley, a company spokesman, said, adding that the latest price increase would affect everything from fabric and
cushions to CD cases, Styrofoam and car parts.
When Dow announced last month’s increases, it spurred a series of similar increases by
Analysts said they expected other companies to follow suit.
other chemical manufacturers, including DuPont and BASF.
Dow’s announcement is the latest indication that companies are beginning to pass along the burden of high energy prices to consumers. Until now, those prices had largely been
absorbed by company profits because market competition prevented retailers from increasing prices at their stores even as
skyrocketing costs continued to strain earnings. But extreme pressure is building in the production chain.
For example, Lowe’s, the home improvement company, has been receiving “unprecedented requests” for price increases from its suppliers, Robert F.
Hull Jr., the chief financial officer, said at a conference. Mr. Hull added that the company had been absorbing price increases itself “to maintain the supply of product,” which has put a strain on gross margins,
but he forecast that some of that increase would be passed along later this year.In addition to soaring energy costs, companies are also having to deal with the increase in the cost of raw materials.Posco of South
Korea, one of the world’s largest steel producers, said Tuesday that it was raising prices by more than 20 percent. That followed an agreement Monday between the global mining company Rio Tinto Group and
the biggest steel maker in China, Baosteel, to raise the price Baosteel pays for Australian iron ore by as much as 97 percent.“It’s clearly a global trend that the higher costs of raw materials are being passed on
along the production chain,” said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at the London office of Bank of America. “Companies have no alternative but to pass that along to their
customers.” Producer prices in the United States rose 7.2 percent in May from a year earlier , while comparable euro zone prices rose 6.1 percent in April, the
latest month for which data were available. Chinese producer prices are rising at nearly a 12 percent annual rate.
The rise in prices also partly reflects the weakness of the dollar, as producers outside the United States demand more of the currency for their goods as its buying power declines. In addition, a ripple effect has
been created in which the rise in crude oil costs has carried over into other sectors.
Economists say the $664 billion chemical industry has been among the hardest hit by soaring energy prices. Every $1
increase in crude oil prices costs the industry $660 million a year, said Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American
Chemistry Council.
For Dow Chemical, its feedstock and energy costs, which are up more than 40 percent since last year, have increased fourfold in the last five years, to more than $32 billion this year. Dow, whose
shares fell nearly 3 percent on Tuesday, has been steadily increasing prices for the last several years, but it is only in the last
month that consumers have been directly hit.
“These costs have surged so much that the middle guys say they can’t absorb any more,” Mr. Liveris said in an interview this month. “There is no reason the middle of the supply chain should have to absorb
it.”
RPS Aff 67
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Food Impacts


High fertilizer prices drives up food prices—Brazil proves.

Dow Jones Newswires in 8 (“Brazil Vale Speeds Up Projects Linked to Fertilizers”, 6-25-08,
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djhighlights/200806251919DOWJONESDJONLINE000804.htm)

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Brazilian mining giant Companhia Vale do Rio Doce ( RIO), or Vale, is speeding up existing projects related to supplying raw materials for the
fertilizer industry, a Vale press officer confirmed on Wednesday.
However, the company said that this wasn't due to political pressure from the Brazilian government, which is worried that the high costs of fertilizer is contributing
to rising food prices.
"These projects have been under way for a long time," the press officer told Dow Jones Newswires, without giving details of the acceleration program.
According to the Vale press officer, the mining company has already committed $479 million to complete an open cast phosphate mine in Peru, with a capacity of 3.9 million
metric tons.
Vale also pumped $223 million into its Taquari-Vassouras potassium mine in the northeastern state of Sergipe. The mine has a capacity to produce 850,000 tons of potassium.
Moreover, Vale is undertaking a feasibility study to mine potassium in the Neuquen province in Argentina.
Other companies such as Fosfertil, Bunge, Yara, Copebras and Galvani, have announced some $4 billion in investments over the next four years, Valor said.
Brazil's fertilizer prices have risen between 100% and 150% in the last 12 months, depending on the location, the National Association of
Fertilizer Distributors, or Anda, said recently.
High fertilizer prices have become a major concern for the agricultural lobby, with the National Confederation of Agriculture,
or CNA, complaining that high costs are eating into farmers' profits.

Increased food prices will cause a billion to starve.

Bloomberg News in 8 (Shamin Adam, “Rising Food Prices Hurting 1 Billion Asians, ADB’s Kuroda Says”, 5-6-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&refer=India&sid=at3LhdZJFQJE)

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Surging food prices are hurting 1 billion Asians as the region's poor struggle to cope with rising food and
energy costs that are stoking inflation, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda said.
``Soaring food prices are hitting the poor very hard,'' Kuroda told delegates attending the ADB's annual meeting in Madrid yesterday. ``Their purchasing power has
been eroded, placing them at a greater risk of hunger and malnutrition.''
Global food prices surged 57 percent in March from a year earlier, according to the United Nations. Asia's poorest countries including Bangladesh and Tajikistan have borne the
brunt of the increases, Kuroda said on May 3, even as the price gains stoked social tensions in other parts of the world.
``Reduced supplies, increased demands, record high energy prices, the steep depreciation of the U.S. dollar and trade restrictions imposed by some countries have all combined to
cause the price surge in recent months,'' Kuroda said.
Vietnam and other rice-producing nations have curtailed exports to maintain supplies and damp local inflation, pushing up prices for buyers such as the Philippines, the world's
biggest importer of the grain.
The rising prices have led to wider fiscal deficits as governments in the region subsidize food and energy costs for their
people. The ADB last week said it will make ``sizeable'' loans to help countries in Asia and the Pacific meet the cost of higher food prices.
The lender was formed in 1966 to improve the welfare of people in the Asia and the Pacific. Two-thirds of the world's poor reside in the region, and
about 600 million Asians survive on less than $1 a day.

High oil and food prices destroy confidence and tank the economy

Gieve in 8—Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (Sir John, “Global Economy Affected By Two Cycles,” 6-28-08,
Commodity Online, http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/Global-economy-affected-by-two-cycles-10016-
3.html)

As of yesterday, oil was trading at around $130 per barrel. Relative to the rise in the prices of consumer goods and services,
oil prices (in US dollars) are now higher than they were in the 1970s.
The rise in oil prices has pushed up on fuel, retail gas and electricity prices. Similarly, the rising cost of agricultural
commodities has driven up food prices . Taken together energy and food components can account for 1.1 percentage points of
the 1.2 percentage points increase in CPI inflation from 2.1% in December last year to 3.3% in May.
There is no doubt that the emergence of China, India and other Asian economies in recent years is a permanent change in the
structure and balance of the world economy. But there are signs too that an element of their recent growth may be cyclical.
The growing inflationary pressures and the scale of the booms in investment are typical of economies reaching the top of the
cycle. The huge increase in oil and food prices will itself have a dampening effect on consumers in those countries – as it will
in the West. So we may well see the balance of supply and demand shift at some point.
RPS Aff 68
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Pakistan Impact


High fertilizer costs exacerbate Pakistani food shortages and destroy the economy—government subsidies can’t solve.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur in 8 (“Pakistan’s Food Crisis to Worsen on Rising Fertilizer Cost”, 6-19-08,
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1412121.php/ANALYSIS_Pakistans_food_crisis_to_worsen
_on_rising_fertilizer_cost)

Karachi - Rising fertilizer prices are contributing to the global food crisis that is hitting world's poor, and the sixth most-
populous country Pakistan is no exception.
Global price increases of nearly 400 per cent for phosphoric acid in the last 3 months have increased the cost to farmers for
even the heavily subsidized DAP fertilizer by more than 150 per cent.
In some parts of Pakistan, the price of DAP has increased as much as 300 per cent, according to farmer Bilal Soomro in
Jamshoro, an agricultural town in southern Sindh province.
The phosphoric acid market, which is controlled by a handful of producers, was trading at around 576 dollars a ton during the
first quarter of the year, but is now hovering at around 2,100 dollars a ton.
'This is a massive and phenomenal increase in cost in just three months,' said Zohair Abbasi, an analyst at Capital One
Equities.
DAP, a by-product of phosphoric acid, is considered worldwide as an elixir for agriculture growth.
An average 20-kilogram bag of DAP that cost around 1,200 rupees (20 dollars) one year ago, now costs between 2,800 and
3,000 rupees (45-48 dollars), putting further strain on framers already in crisis due to water shortages and higher electricity
prices.
For majority of Pakistan's grain growers, the options are limited: either to cut down the essential fertilizer use, or switch to
other less lucrative vegetable crops which require less fertilizer.
Pakistan produces some of the world's largest crops of wheat, cotton, rice and sugar to feed the growing nation of 170 million
people, most of whom survive on about 1 dollar a day.
'Without fertilizers we can not produce any bumper crop,' Abbasi said.
Pakistan has witnessed a severe food shortage in recent months as flour prices rose by over 200 percent and food riots
erupted in several cities.
The situation may reach crisis levels if the country again fails to produce enough wheat in fiscal 2008-2009 (July-June),
according to food economist Hari Ram Lohano of the Social Policy and Development Center.
Agriculture is the linchpin of Pakistan's economy and a dominant force in the gross domestic product (GDP), representing 60
per cent of the economy and employing 68 per cent of the total labor force.
Any shortfall in the agriculture output also severely jolts the country's growth rate.
The World Bank forecasts relatively low GDP growth of 3.5 per cent for the next fiscal year of 2008-2009, starting from July
1. The country had enjoyed average GDP growth of 7 to 8 per cent during the last eight years, thanks to healthy crops and
massive inflows of US aid money lavished in exchange for Pakistan's cooperation in Washington's wars on Islamic
extremists.
The Ministry of Finance also painted a bleak picture, showing agriculture growth of 1.49 per cent in the current fiscal year
that ends June 30, against the budget target of 4.8 per cent.
Pakistan's total fertilizer demand is 6.6 million tons, of which 5.4 million tones is urea produced from domestically available
abundant natural gas, and 1.2 million tons is DAP fertilizer.
The country has only one DAP plant, the army-owned Fauji Fertilizer, which produces around 465,000 tons. The rest is
imported.
But rising demand for bio-fuels is making availability of phosphoric acid scarce.
According to farmers, an ideal mix is two bags each for urea and DAP but in Pakistan, due to high DAP prices, the customary
usage is just one bag of DAP and three bags of urea.
'This gap will now widen further and may have severe impacts in our agriculture growth in future,' said Abbasi.
Although the government has increased subsidy from 400 rupees to 1,000 rupees per bag of DAP, the net impact for farmers
is still 150 per cent higher than last year.
'DAP is still going to be beyond the reach of many farmers,' Soomro said.
RPS Aff 69
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Renewables Reduce LNG Imports


New renewable energy policies will displace Liquefied Natural gas

UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK

How would the RES affect national energy security?


Much of the U.S. energy system—power plants, dams, refineries, pipelines, tankers, and the electricity transmission grid—
presents significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are small, geographically dispersed, and do not
require transporting or storing radioactive or combustible materials. Increasing renewable energy would reduce the number of
vulnerable facilities over time. Renewable energy can also reduce the need to expand imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
LNG imports from non-NAFTA countries, including some OPEC members—Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar—
are projected to grow from less than 1 percent of gas supply today to up to 12 percent by 2010. Renewable fuels can also
displace oil. Among the experts calling for a federal RES to increase energy security are James Woolsey, former head of the
CIA, Robert McFarland, former national security advisor to President Reagan, and Admiral Thomas Moorer, former head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

An RPS would significantly drop dependence on liquefied natural gas

Sterzinger 2 – Executive Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project


(George, “Energy: Maximizing Resources; Meeting Our Needs; Retaining Jobs” June 17, 2002
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/repp_testimony_boston.pdf) AMK

The specific EIA analysis, which was conservative in the technology assumptions and a number of other features,
nevertheless showed overall energy bill declining as a result of the renewable development. With a 10% RPS, renewable
energy will displace natural; gas and lower the cost of natural gas for all users. Although the EIA analysis does not go into
detail, REPP believes that a renewable led decline in natural gas usage will lead to a reduction in the use of high cost
imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). A program to accelerate the penetration of renewable energy will be lower in cost,
provide obvious environmental benefits, and increase security.
RPS Aff 70
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices


A national RPS reduces demand and price of natural gas

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

A National RPS Reduces Natural Gas Prices


A national RPS can save consumers money by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have documented that an
increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of
natural gas.77 Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, they can help
offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great
value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads. Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an
excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a
capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of natural-gas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity.78
The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas
increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does the value of the renewable resources used to displace
it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price
of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term.79 This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected affect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas prices:
Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting
more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce
residential, commercial, and industrial gas bills.80
In ay 2007 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists assessed the cumulative affect of a 20 percent national RPS on average
annual electricity prices and found that an RPS would save consumers more than $49 billion largely by depressing the price
of natural gas used for electricity production and home heating:
Average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5
percent. In addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a
result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020.81
UCS is not alone in their findings. LBNL
researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the
level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more gas prices are reduced.
Nine of fifteen studies evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.82
Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent
of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel
consumption, lowering the price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would lead
to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.83 // pg. 42-44

Federal RPS would significantly reduce gas prices due to lower power demand.

Durbin, 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William, E&E News PM
May 14, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions
reduction”, lexis, AG)

Monica Trauzzi: What does a renewable portfolio standard do for energy costs for the consumer? That's a concern.
William Durbin: It is. It's a big concern, and that's where we were a bit surprised to be able to see such an impact on gas use.
And the reason I keep coming back to the gas issue is that in many of the power markets in the United States we've gone to
competitive markets. And so their gas sets the price of power in many of these markets. So if gas prices go up, power prices
will go up with it. If gas prices go down, the same happens, power prices will go down. So when we saw that the renewables
standard would reduce gas demand and ease pressures out of the gas market, because we have a relatively tight gas supply
and demand balance, it was interesting to be able to see that we saw a softening in the gas price that then translated into a
lower power price as well. So consumers should be happy.
RPS Aff 71
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices


20% RPS will reduce the price of natural gas

Cooper, 7 – Senior Policy Director, Network for New Energy Choices (Chris, NNEC, “New Study Reveals Flaws in Congressional
Energy Debate,” 6-13-07, http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?blog_entry_id=168&page=fullstory&rd=pages&sd=df, AG)

Reducing the Percentage Actually Increases Costs to Utilities and Consumers


More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that an RPS saves utilities money by offsetting significant amounts of expensive
natural gas. Renewable resources (with stable fuel prices) can take pressure off of the tight natural gas market and serve as a “hedge”
against volatile natural gas prices, saving consumers as much as $49 Billion by 2020. However, this potential “hedge” value
is realized only when the RPS mandate is high enough (15%-20%) to offset a significant amount of natural gas. At lower levels, renewable
resources simply do not offset enough gas to generate a cost savings.

A 20% RPS will drive down natural gas demand and price

UPU 7 (Utah Public Utilities, “Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Will Reduce Power and Natural Gas Costs, But Not Have a
Significant Impact on GHG Emission Levels” (May 2007),
http://publicutilities.utah.gov/archive/federalrenewableenergyportfoliostandard.pdf.) AMK

A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural gas demand and price, lower the overall price of
power, but only lead to a slowing in the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), not an absolute reduction from current levels according to the new Wood Mackenzie
report, "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard."
The United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity. Mounting concerns over US
dependence on fossil fuels and the need to address global warming are helping to drive efforts in the US Congress to pass legislation establishing a federal standard to mandate the
use of renewable energy. Recent RPS proposals call for an average of 15 percent of power generation to come from renewable sources within the next two decades, up from 6
percent today. While the US Congress contemplates a federal standard, 24 states have already adopted legislation mandating targets for renewables. Renewable energy in this case
is defined as wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydro power.
"Renewable energy alone will not be enough to result in the large GHG reduction targets being proposed," said Joe Sannicandro, VP - North American Power and Michael Pickens,
Senior Analyst - North American Power for Wood Mackenzie. "Currently, the US power sector produces 39 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions. Our study shows that a
Federal RPS would only be one small piece in a large and complicated puzzle to halt the growth of or reduce the absolute level of CO2 emissions. The study shows that
implementing the Federal RPS would reduce total domestic CO2 levels in 2025 by only 10% from the Wood Mackenzie base case. Equally important is that the growth rate in CO2
production is still a positive 0.8% per year under a Federal RPS compared with a growth rate of 1.2% per year in Wood Mackenzie's base case outlook. Clearly, a reduction in total
CO2 levels will require other options to be implemented including nuclear power, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon sequestration and demand-side
approaches to reduce the growth rate of electricity consumption."
According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects, leading to a 500-
percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase translates into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and
2026. Thereport also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and
fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower electricity costs," continued Sannicandro. "Over
the next 20 years, the Federal RPS case leads to a savings of
$240 billion (2006 dollars) in wholesale power costs, outweighing the higher capital investment to build the additional
capacity."
The lower natural gas prices also reduce the total value of other generation technologies, particularly coal and nuclear
capacity, potentially impacting the value of transactions involving existing generating assets. Despite the benefits of renewable energy,
there are still several significant challenges confronting the renewables industry that need to be resolved before such a large-scale national renewable program can be achieved,
including uncertainty surrounding tax incentives, the ever-present NIMBY concerns, and land requirements for the additional build out of renewable facilities.

An RPS would reduce the price of electricity and decrease natural gas use

Glick 7 - Director, Government Affairs, PPM Energy


(Richard , ”Can a National Renewable Portfolio Standard Increase Energy Security, Reduce Emissions and
Lower Costs?” (July 17, \2007), http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/647) AMK
.
EIA, in the 2005 study of our 10 percent portfolio standard, determined that the price of natural gas would go down enough,
from the portfolio standards, think about it, you just reduced the demand for natural gas by substituting something else for
generation from natural gas. You reduced the price enough that you've saved money on both natural gas, for customers who
use natural gas, and the price of electricity. Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Ryan Weiser did a study in 2005 where he had 15 different modeling exercises of different
portfolio standards, every one of them came to the same conclusion, that the price of natural gas goes down. Sometimes it goes down to where the price of electricity only
increases by an extremely minimal amount. And often the price of natural gas goes down enough that it lowers the price of electricity. Wood
Mackenzie, a natural gas consultancy, they've got no stake in this thing. They don't have an ax to grind. They're not advocating for a renewable portfolio standard. They're trying to
inform the gas industry. They did a report a couple of months ago that indicated that a
15 percent renewable portfolio standard would lower the price
of natural gas from 16 to 23 percent between now and 2026, save over $100 billion, even after you net out the capital costs.
Now, does the economics work? Now, think back once more to that interregional debate. The claim is that there's a cash transfer, a wealth transfer from the Southeast, on the part
of Southeasterners to the upper Midwest where all the wind is. Well, even if it were true, even if that were true aren't you still seeing the lower price of natural gas in the Southeast?
And you're not paying for it. You're not doing the things to accomplish it. Where is the wealth transfer in that case? It's headed in the other direction. This is a fair program. It will
work. It has economic benefits. We need to do it. We're going to put a price on carbon, when we do that this will make even more economic sense. There's nothing that we can do
to reduce the price of carbon, that saves money, except do this. Now, if we can accomplish those goals, energy security, 10 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, that's
what Wood Mackenzie said, by 2025, and save customers money, wouldn't we be foolish not to?
RPS Aff 72
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – RPS Solves Price Spikes / AE Helps Chemical Industry
RPS is key to lock in the production cost of electricity – insulating industry from price spikes

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

A greater reliance on renewable energy technologies would also help insulate the electric utility industry from fuel
interruptions and shortages. Unlike coal, natural gas, uranium, and oil, renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass
are available in every state.43 One-thousand-times more solar energy reaches the surface of the earth each hour than the
energy generated by all fossil fuels combined. The Midwest has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of wind, since it contains
enough usable wind resources to produce all of the electricity used by the nation.44 Many industrial and agricultural
processes produce significant amounts of combustible byproducts, including tobacco residue, chicken carcasses, coffee-
grounds, peach pits, sawdust, scrap wood, and rice-hulls that can be used in dedicated bioelectricity facilities.
And, in contrast to fossil-fueled generators, renewables lock in the production cost of electricity since they need not rely on
volatile supplies of fuel. In the current era of restructuring, natural disasters, and price spikes, many manufacturers and
utilities regard certainty as the most important factor in determining whether to invest in certain energy technologies. The
more uncertainty there is about future fuel costs, the higher the risk premiums placed on investment returns. The capital
intensity and long-term nature of such investments-generators are typically considered capital investments with decades-long
lifetimes-only compounds the risk. Renewables enable power providers to offer more stable electricity rates since their
levelized costs of electricity remain consistent to a greater degree.

An RPS will insulate the U.S. from energy price shocks

UCS, 1 (Union of Concerned Scientists, San Diego Earth Times, “Federal renewable energy standard would help prevent
energy price shocks,” December 2001, http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1201/et1201s6.html) // JMP

Adoption of a federal renewable energy standard would help insulate the United States from energy price shocks by diversifying
energy supply, according to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, Clean Energy Blueprint, found that America could achieve at least 20 percent
of its electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy sources by 2020 and save consumers money, when combined with policies to save energy.
“This report shows that there are alternative solutions to the erratic prices and supply of commodities like natural gas,” said report
author Alan Nogee, Director of Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Adopting
a renewable energy standard would diversify
electricity generation, as well as reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It's time for Congress to follow twelve states and adopt this standard.”
The report outlines a series of policies to increase US energy efficiency and renewable energy use, including a renewable portfolio standard that would require electric utilities to
increase non-hydropower renewable energy from about two percent today to 20 percent of overall electricity generation by 2020.
More than 100 organizations praised the policies outlined in the report and called on the US Senate to include them in national energy legislation.
“The UCS report provides the sort of well-reasoned and documented analysis of all energy options, not simply those favored by the existing fossil-fuel industry, that are needed
to promote energy security and favorable economics through supply diversity,” said Daniel M. Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society and Director of the Renewable and
Appropriate Energy Laboratory (REAL) at the University of California, Berkeley. “A renewable energy portfolio standard provides the sort of sound, economically driven basis for
a diverse and clean energy economy that should be embraced by free-market economists and environmentalists alike.”
Renewable energy standards have already been adopted in twelve states: Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.
“Renewable portfolio standards have been a tremendous success in several states, including in President Bush's home state of Texas,” said Nogee. “If there truly is
commitment to creating energy security in the US, enacting federal renewable standards will reduce the vulnerability of our
energy system to disruption. It is the smart, affordable and effective option.”
The study found that consumers would save more than $440 billion over the period 2002 to 2020, if a series of energy-efficiency and renewable energy policies recommended in
the report were to become law. Energy-efficiency policies are a major component of the Clean Energy Blueprint, including new minimum efficiency standards on appliances and
other equipment, tax incentives for advanced energy-saving products and matching funds for state-based energy-efficiency programs.
“Energy-efficiency is a key foundation for achieving energy and economic savings for consumers and for increasing the energy independence of the US,” said Steven Nadel,
Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and a collaborator on the report. “When fully in place, the policies advocated in the report will save
a typical American family $350 a year in energy costs.”
In addition to stabilizing energy prices and supply, the policies of Clean Energy Blueprint would:
Reduce US use of natural gas by 31 percent and coal by nearly 60 percent and save more oil by 2020 than can be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
in 60 years.
Avoid the need for 975 new power plants, retire 180 old coal plants, retire 14 existing nuclear plants and reduce the need for hundreds of thousands of miles of new gas pipelines
and electricity transmission lines.
Affordably reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by two-thirds, while also reducing harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 55 percent.
Enact federal energy-efficiency standards to cut energy waste and save oil and other fuels.
“This study makes it clear that on both economic and environmental grounds, the renewable portfolio standard makes sense,” Nogee said. “And now, in our post-
September 11th world, we recognize that diversifying electricity supply, as a renewable energy standard would also help
reduce the security risk to our electricity generation infrastructure.”
RPS Aff 73
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Alternative Energy Helps Chemical Industry


Natural gas prices are destroying the chemical industry—alternative energy is key

PBT 7 [Pittsburg Business Times, Kim Lyons, “Chemical summit to address rail, natural gas price concerns,” 11-2-7,
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2007/11/05/story13.html] // LDK

Energy supply is a another big concern. Greg Wilkinson, vice president of public and government affairs for NOVA
Chemicals, said the rising price of natural gas, a feedstock for chemical companies, has hit the industry hard.
The government has encouraged natural gas use without increasing supply, he said.
"It's caused problems for us because we turn it into products like plastics," Wilkinson said. "We add value to natural gas for
end-use products."
Schmidt said exploring alternative energy supplies like wind, solar and nuclear power is one goal.
"Every dollar increase in natural gas prices costs PPG Industries $60 million," she said.
But even as they wrestle with these issues, several of the chemical companies that will be involved in the summit have seen
big earnings increases in recent months.
RPS Aff 74
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Investment in Transmission Needed


Increases in transmission capacity now are key to ensuring future power supplies

Reutter , 6 – Business and law editor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Mark, University of Illinois Press,
“Transmission congestion threatens to clog nation's power grid,” 7-27-06,
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0727power.html) // SM

Inadequate investment in the power grid transmission network remains the Achilles heel of the nation’s electric system, an
engineer who specializes in utility policy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says.
The electric industry and government regulators have addressed the immediate problems that led to the nation’s worst power
failure three years ago on Aug. 14, 2003, said George Gross, a U. of I. professor of electrical and computer engineering. This
includes mandatory reliability standards for the industry, which were passed by Congress as part of the 2005 Energy Policy
Act.
But the broader problems of transmission congestion and bottlenecks continue to threaten the reliability of the grid,
particularly during periods of peak demand.
“The August 2003 blackout was a wake-up call for the country to upgrade its transmission grid system,” Gross said. “But the
truth is that very few major transmission projects have been constructed and, as a result, transmission capacity has failed to
keep pace with the expansion of power demand.”
In the period between 1988 and 1998, for example, growth in electric demand grew by 30 percent, but growth in transmission
capacity was just 15 percent, Gross said.
The 2003 blackout prompted calls for spending of up to $100 billion to reduce bottlenecks and increase capacity of the
transmission lines that carry electricity from power plants to homes and businesses.
Instead, investment has lagged behind both power-plant generation and growth in demand for electricity. “Demand growth is
forecasted to be 20 percent between 1998-2008, but the increase in transmission capacity is still below 5 percent,” Gross said.
“The need to strengthen the existing transmission infrastructure, to expand it and to effectively harness advances in
technology constitutes the single most pressing challenge for the country’s electricity system.”

An immediate investment in transmission capacity is needed to prevent a breakdown in the power grid

Ried, 8 – Senior Senator from Nevada and Senate Majority Leader (Harry, Congressional Testimony, “Reid Statement on Bill
to Build Renewable Energy Transmission Lines in Nevada,” 6-17-08, http://www.politickernv.com/jkcooper/1875/reid-
statement-bill-build-renewable-energy-transmission-lines-nevada) // SM

"Despite 25 States with an RPS, the Federal government has been very slow to embrace renewable energy, instead preferring
the older, dirtier or more expensive sources. Neither the Federal government, nor the utility industry have invested enough to
integrate the growing renewable generation assets into the grid.
"And, overall, the sluggish pace of transmission investment by utilities has left us with a brittle and insecure power grid.
Even the Department of Defense is concerned about grid security now.
"Unfortunately, nationwide investment in transmission declined for over two decades - by 1998, companies spent less than
half of what they did in 1975. At the same time, electricity sales have nearly doubled, prices have risen, and consumer
demand continues to grow. Recently, utilities have begun to increase their transmission investment, but they're far behind the
curve.
"A new and significant amount of investment must occur. This will not be easy, given the incredible backlog. It will not be
cheap either, because instead of making gradual improvements over the years, the industry has waited until now. The Brattle
Group estimates the nation will need $900 billion for distribution and transmission by 2030.
"But, that investment must be smart. And by smart, I don't mean simply linking existing and highly inefficient coal plants by
Federal energy corridors.
RPS Aff 75
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Utilities Intentionally Promote Congestion


Currently utilities are intentionally congesting the transmission grid

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

B. Utilities Benefit from Congestion


Like prisons, transmission lines would almost certainly be inadequately funded if left to individual market participants. Under
normal market conditions, some utilities benefit from limited transmission resources. When the transmission system is
saturated, less supply is available to meet existing demand, and prices increase. Market forces create perverse incentives for
some utilities to delay transmission upgrades unless or until they risk catastrophic system failure. Even FERC has observed:
Market participants also complain that companies that own both transmission and generation under-invest in transmission
because the resulting competitive entry often decreases the value of their generation assets.125
Market dynamics can create situations where congestion prices benefit some electricity generators at the expense of
customers, who not only pay higher prices, but suffer costs from the increased risk of blackouts. 126
The current structure of the U.S. transmission system also encourages some utilities
to intentionally flood limited transmission lines to crowd out other generators.
In a 2007 letter to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas, for example, Florida Power & Light (FPL) accused TXU
of intentionally flooding West Texas transmission lines with high-cost power to prevent FPL’s wind power from reaching
customers across the state. While TXU has denied the allegations, the state’s independent electricity market monitor found
TXU guilty of similar market manipulations during the summer of 2005 and the PUC recommended that TXU be fined $210
million for that offense.127 // pg. 61
RPS Aff 76
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now


The stress on the grid will cause blackouts if not fixed fast

Kaplan, 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid,” 4-27-2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html) // SM

Pushed to the Limit


The U.S. electrical grid—the system that carries electricity from producers to consumers—is in dire straits. Electricity
generation and consumption have steadily risen, placing an increased burden on a transmission system that was not designed
to carry such a large load. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, paltry investment in the aging infrastructure
caused transmission capacity to drop 19 percent annually for the decade between 1992 and 2002. Since then, utility
companies have begun sinking more money into transmission capacity, currently spending $3 billion to $4 billion a year. As a
result of recent deregulation, some utilities own transmission lines and others do not, but the law requires transmission
capacity to be shared, leaving companies unsure about major investment in transmission assets.
Unfortunately, these new investments will not alleviate the stress on the transmission grid: While transmission capacity is
projected to increase 7 percent in the next decade, demand will rise some 19 percent. As a result, consumers will incur higher
costs and blackouts could become more frequent.

More blackouts are on the way – investment in new transmission is critical to prevent this

Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power
System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858-
2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM

Most fundamentally, they said, power companies have not solved complications associated with deregulation of the industry
over the past decade. Before deregulation, electricity was typically generated closer to where it was used. With deregulation,
electricity is increasingly being shipped on high-voltage transmission lines from power plants in one part of the country to
consumers who live hundreds of miles away.
In addition, there still has not been significant investment in new transmission lines that specialists say are needed to allow
electricity to flow freely from one part of the country to another and provide a route for backup electricity that could limit the
scope of a blackout.
"The sorts of things that you need to do to make sure that we're not going to have a blackout are not coming into place," said
Michael W. Golay, a professor of nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The blackout reports and
actions that have been taken have really been, in my view, exercises in damage control to try to deflect criticism. We'll see if
I'm right when we see if we have more blackouts, which I'm expecting we will."
Industry executives and outside specialists are divided about why there has not been another major outage in the past year.
Utility officials credit the improvements they have made and the increased adherence to the voluntary rules. But academics
who study the nation's aging power grid, a 200,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines, said the reason may
actually be a combination of moderate temperatures and good luck.

The grid is weak – it’s susceptible to anything from broken trees to terrorists

Kaplan, 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid,” 4-27-2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html) // SM
Introduction
On August 14, 2003, fifty million people in the Northeastern United States and Canada suddenly found themselves without
electricity, some for more than twenty-four hours. In addition to eight lives, the largest blackout in U.S. history cost an
estimated $6 billion to $10 billion. Contrary to initial fears, the outage was not the result of a terrorist attack or some other
form of sabotage. Rather, untrimmed trees in Ohio set off a chain reaction that cast 9,300 square miles into darkness.
Sadly, this was no isolated incident. In July 2006, a nine-day power outage in Queens, New York affected one hundred
thousand people. The apparent cause of that disruption was deterioration of the thirty- to sixty-year-old cables servicing the
area. The same month, a violent thunderstorm in St. Louis, Missouri knocked out power leaving some seven hundred
thousand people to brave a weeklong heat wave without electricity.
Current stresses on the U.S. energy grid presents cause for concern. With an aging infrastructure and growing energy
consumption, major outages may become an increasing phenomenon. The specter of terrorism also looms large: Experts say
jihadis in Iraq have proven adept at disrupting the electrical grid in that country and could easily apply that same skill set in
the United States.
RPS Aff 77
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now


Electricity transmission capacity is at the breaking point – its coming collapse will destroy our information based
society

Trivella, 8 - Executive Vice President, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Anthony J.,
IndustryWeek, “Mitigating Equipment Breakdown Risks,” 6-4-2008,
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=16446&SectionID=2) // SM

Aging Infrastructure Meets the Data Explosion


The U.S. infrastructure, including the power grid and the equipment that distributes electricity inside commercial buildings, is being strained by aging equipment and the
proliferation of power-hungry new technology. Much of the transmission grid system was developed more than a half century ago. The electrical systems in many buildings were
not designed to carry the loads that are necessary today.
Consider these facts:
U.S. electricity consumption at peak demand times is growing at twice the pace that committed power generation capacity is being added.
A recent North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) survey of utility industry professionals ranked aging
infrastructure and limited new construction as the number one challenge to electric reliability -- both in likelihood of
occurrence and potential severity.
The electric transmission system is increasingly operating close to its capacity margin and many areas of the grid are
regularly under stress.
Construction of new transmission facilities is still slow and continues to face obstacles.
The average age of transformers used within the utility industry is over 30 years old and many units are nearing the end of
their expected life.
Electrical systems within buildings are often overlooked and under-maintained. Too many building owners don't realize that electrical equipment requires preventive maintenance.
Estimates on the annual costs to industry from power surges and other related anomalies have ranged from $30 billion to
$200 billion.
Despite reliance on sensitive digital technology, equipment owners too often neglect to install adequate electrical surge protection, placing equipment and business activity at risk.
These trends increase the risk for more frequent and severe blackouts and brownouts, electrical system breakdowns, equipment damage, business interruption and structure fires. In
fact, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reports electrical distribution failures each year are responsible for about 9 percent of fires in commercial buildings.
The loss of power or poor power quality presents other exposures. In
our information-based society with its explosive data growth, any power
interruption can result in a commercial disaster. Data can be lost due to equipment breakdown and it can be expensive, and
sometimes impossible, to restore the information due to rapid changes in technology.

We are vulnerable at every moment – a tree falling could lead to massive blackouts

WSJ, 7 (William Tucker, “Electrical Storm - With demand skyrocketing, wires fraying and political resolve flickering, how
long will the lights stay on?,” 7-21-2007, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118497036898073460.html)
*The books reviewed are “The Grid” by Phillip F. Schewe, who has a doctorate in particle physics and is the chief science
writer at the American Institute of Physics , and “Lights Out” by Jason Makansi, previous editor-in-chief of Power and
Electric Power International magazines and as a contributing editor of Electrical World magazine.

With summer heat blazing over much of the U.S. and millions of air conditioners set on high, the country is having its annual
flirtation with a massive brownout or blackout. A major power failure, of course, would inspire much public hand-wringing
over the electricity supply. But then most folks would go back to ignoring the subject until the next time the lights go out.
Even without a dramatic accident, however, electricity is at the center of every discussion about a carbon tax, renewable
energy or the energy producers' interest in building nuclear reactors. There is much at stake.
As Phillip Schewe writes in "The Grid," the nation's electric infrastructure is "the most complex machine ever made." Tying
together hydroelectric dams and 1,000-megawatt coal plants, wending its way across thousands of miles of transmission
lines, carrying electricity at hundreds of thousands of volts through substations that step it up and down until it is finally
brought across the last mile into your home at a tame 120 volts -- the electrical grid is an astonishing balancing act that must
match supply and demand minute by minute, hour by hour, year by year. As Jason Makansi, the author of "Lights Out," puts
it: "Very few people on this planet truly appreciate how difficult it is to control the flow of electricity."
Of course, it doesn't always work. When a couple of trees brush against a transmission wire in Ohio, for instance, most of the
East Coast may go dark -- as it did in the summer of 2003. Experts agree that the long-distance transmission system has been
stretched to the breaking point. Mr. Makansi asks: "How did a First World country end up with a Third World grid?" There is
no one answer, however, nor is there a consensus on how to go about solving the problem.
RPS Aff 78
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – A2: Blackouts Don’t Happen


The only reason massive blackouts haven’t happened is only due to luck

Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power
System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858-
2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM

In addition, there still has not been significant investment in new transmission lines that specialists say are needed to allow
electricity to flow freely from one part of the country to another and provide a route for backup electricity that could limit the
scope of a blackout.
"The sorts of things that you need to do to make sure that we're not going to have a blackout are not coming into place," said
Michael W. Golay, a professor of nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The blackout reports and
actions that have been taken have really been, in my view, exercises in damage control to try to deflect criticism. We'll see if
I'm right when we see if we have more blackouts, which I'm expecting we will."
Industry executives and outside specialists are divided about why there has not been another major outage in the past year.
Utility officials credit the improvements they have made and the increased adherence to the voluntary rules. But academics
who study the nation's aging power grid, a 200,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines, said the reason may
actually be a combination of moderate temperatures and good luck.

Lengthy blackouts in past show what could happen

Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive
Education Program
(Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth,
p.165-6 ) // SM

America's electrical power grid has experienced serious power failures on a number of occasions over the past thirty-seven
years, each one creating panic and a taste of what might happen if blackouts were to become more frequent and lengthy in
duration. The first major blackout occurred on November 9, 1965. A single malfunctioning relay in Canada resulted in a cascading power failure that
quickly enveloped most of the northeastern United States, plunging the region into darkness. More than thirty million
Americans lost all electric power for more than twelve hours. The states of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine were all affected. In New York
City, people were stuck in elevators and traffic was snarled to near-gridlock as traffic lights went out throughout the
metropolitan area. Power, light, and telephone services were knocked out everywhere. An eerie silence hung over New York City and the rest of the
Northeast. In a moment of time, millions of people, so accustomed to a world mediated by electricity, suddenly found themselves vulnerable and without recourse. The many conveniences
they had come to rely on to sustain their lives went dead. A kind of village life returned to the hardened streets of New York
for several hours as residents descended onto the sidewalks seeking information and comfort from strangers-turned-
neighbors. This first time, the police reported an actual drop in crime in the city of New York. Nine months later, New York health authorities announced, in a somewhat humorous vein, a surge in IICW
births. Apparently, the loss of television reception turned more than a few New Yorkers to more traditional forms of entertainment.
Still,the public was enraged by the outage. Investigations were launched, recommendations were made, and changes were
implemented to guarantee that a blackout would never happen again. But it did happen again, despite all the public
assurances. On the evening of July 13, 1977, lightning struck a tower in Westchester County north of New York City, and short-circuited two high-voltage power lines, triggering a cascade of events that
shut down the electrical grid in and around New York City. The blackout affected nine million people. Electricity remained out of service for more
than fifteen hours. Unlike the 1965 blackout, which occurred on a cool November evening, this second occurrence struck at
9:34 P.M, on a hot, humid night, shutting off air conditioning and sending human emotions to the boiling point. In poorer
neighborhoods of the city, mobs of people went on a rampage, burning buildings and looting stores. More than 4,000 people were arrested in the blackout, and seventy-eight policemen were injured in the
melee. The chairman of the board of Consolidated Edison, the electric utility company that managed the power grid for New York City and its suburbs, called the blackout “act of God." Surveying the damage
done by looters in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, a Roman Catholic priest gave the event a different spin, proclaiming, "We are without God now."
The western coast of the United States has experienced similar power failures and massive blackouts. The first major outage occurred at 3:45
P.M. on August 10, 1996, and extended from Oregon to the Mexican border. Nine states in all were affected by the blackout, which occurred on one of the
hottest days of the year with temperatures reaching 113°F. Five million California residents lost all power. The blackout was traced to
power lines in Oregon that were sagging due to the excessive summer heat. The power lines touched some overgrown trees, triggering the outage. The event created a chain reaction
that rippled across the West Coast, shutting off power in region after region.
RPS Aff 79
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – A2: 2005 Energy Act Fixed Problem


The mandatory rules are not enough – the largest problems haven’t been fixed

Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power
System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858-
2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM

In the year since the largest blackout in American history, utilities have fixed many of the problems that contributed to the
breakdown but still have not resolved larger issues that could lead to future outages, according to industry officials, regulators
and specialists.
Utilities and operators of the nation's electrical grid said they have done what a post-blackout report suggested to diminish the
possibility of a recurrence: cut more trees to prevent them from interfering with lines, upgraded computer systems to give a
better view of how electricity is flowing in other regions and provided more training to control-room employees.
The cascading power failure that spread across eight states and into Canada, affecting 50 million people, highlighted that
some of the operators running the nation's power grid were not following voluntary rules designed to promote electrical
reliability. Jolted by the failures of Aug. 14 -- which disrupted traffic lights, travel and phone service in the Northeast,
Midwest and Canada -- utilities and electrical grid operators have been following the rules much more closely, according to
the industry and its overseers.
"At least for the short term, we're at a much better state than we were last summer," said Patrick H. Wood III, chairman of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees wholesale power.
But Wood and some utility executives remain concerned that operators of the grid could again stray from the rules as
memories of the blackout fade -- unless Congress makes the rules mandatory and approves fines for violators. Even though
mandatory rules are supported by the industry and its harshest critics, Congress has not enacted the legislation, which is part
of a larger, controversial energy bill.
Some industry specialists said that even if everyone were to follow the rules, problems would remain that could lead to more
blackouts.
RPS Aff 80
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Minor Failures Snowball


Even minor failures in the electric grid will result in cascading blackouts

IEEE, 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, “Reliability and Blackouts,” 4-25-2007+,
http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp) // SM

Blackouts
The US electrical power grid has experienced serious power failures on a number of occasions over the past forty years, each
one creating panic and a warning of what may happen if blackouts become more frequent [1]. Interruptions in the supply of
electricity to customers have been caused by disturbances to or malfunctions of the generation, transmission, and/or
distribution of electricity [2]. Most power outages are cause by weather-related events, minor disturbances to the local
distribution system (such as a car striking a distribution pole), or may be planned controlled or rotating outages to
compensate for insufficient generation resources [2, 8]. On other occasions, massive power outages – or blackouts – can be
caused by reliability issues.
Even minor occurrences in the electric power grid can sometimes lead to catastrophic “cascading” blackouts. The loss of a
single generator can result in an imbalance between load and generation, altering many flows in the electricity network. If
there is a loss of generation within an area and there is not enough internal generation then the area transmission lines need to
have enough capacity to transfer energy to supply the load and maintain acceptable system parameters. If the transmission
ties do not have enough capacity, then the system reliability and security are at risk [9].
A "cascade" can occur on a power system if the balance between load, generation and transmission system flows is disrupted
when one or more elements of the electrical grid (generator or transmission line) fails or trips out of service. When an
element trips, existing power flows are instantaneously redistributed onto other elements of the grid according to the laws of
physics, irrespective of state boundaries or ownership of the transmission facilities [9].
Many experts argue that technical issues are not the only player; that part of the reliability problem is energy deregulation
itself, coupled with the end of guaranteed return on investment (ROI) [6]. In short, simple desire to make a profit may be
fueling the occurrences of electric blackouts.
Cascading blackouts are particularly damaging in today’s networked world; they seriously disrupt the nation’s information
superhighway [1]. To compound the dilemma, in recent years, the increased deployment of personal computers has had the
effect of putting additional stresses on the power grid in the US and other countries, making electricity shortages more likely
in the future. The overall demand for digital power is increasing even faster than the greater efficiencies that are coming on
line [1].
Major blackouts are more common than the US electricity industry would like to admit. Major North American blackouts
occurred in 1965 and 1977; the interconnected electric grid covering nine western states collapsed twice in the summer of
1996; in 1999, the northeast experiences outages stemming from a heat wave and equipment failures; California experienced
rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001; and in 2003, the nation experienced the largest blackout in its history [6].
RPS Aff 81
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Impacts


Effective electricity transmission is essential to maintain the economy

DOE, 2 (Department of Energy, “National Transmission Grid Study,” May 2002,


http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/transmission-grid.pdf) // SM

Much work is needed to address transmission bottlenecks and modernize our nation’s transmission systems. As a percentage
of total energy use, electricity use is growing. This reflects the transformation of our economy to an increasingly
sophisticated, information-based economy, one that relies on electricity. Electricity, though, is not a commodity that can be
stored easily. Our transmission infrastructure is at the heart of our economic well-being. Imagine an interstate highway
system without storage depots or warehouses, where traffic congestion would mean not just a loss of time in delivering a
commodity, but a loss of the commodity itself. This is the nature of the transmission infrastructure. That is why bottlenecks
are so important to remove and why an efficient transmission infrastructure is so important to maintain and develop.

Growing demands on transmission capacity will lead to greater energy costs and economic decline – federal leadership
is needed

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

A. Transmission Congestion Raises Prices


Ever since the blackout of 2003, analysts have engaged in heated discussion about the underinvestment in the U.S.
transmission grid relative to the increased demand placed on the system. From 1975 to 1998, for example, transmission
investment in the U.S. actually declined by about 1.5 percent per year, even while electricity demand more than doubled.117
The 2003 blackout prompted calls for up to $100 billion in new transmission investments to prevent bottlenecks and relieve
strained power lines. But investment continues to lag woefully. While electricity demand is forecast to grow by 20 percent
between 1998 and 2008, transmission capacity is set to grow by only 5 percent.118 As a result, congestion expenses in some
areas costs more than $1 billion each year. 119
Some analysts estimate that just to maintain the current ratio of available transmission capacity per MW of electricity demand
will require the construction of 26,600 miles of new transmission over the next decade. Compare this staggering figure with
estimated planned construction of only 6,200 miles and the investment shortfall becomes almost stupefying.120 According to
an informal association of electric utilities in 35 states, maintaining transmission adequacy at year 2000 levels will require
quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011 (in 2004 dollars).121 Ensuring increased reliability will require
even more investment.
As consumers demand more electricity than the system can deliver, U.S. ratepayers could soon face serious congestion-
driven rate increases. The National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) warns that grid congestion will continue to increase
and in some situations “lead to supply shortages and involuntary customer interruptions.”122
There is a growing consensus that federal leadership is needed to address an impending electricity transmission crisis. Citing
NERC concerns that increased volumes of power flowing across the transmission system could overwhelm bulk transmission
capacity, FERC proposed transmission pricing reforms in 2006 designed to encourage utility investments in the nation’s
transmission infrastructure.123 In testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources,
FERC Chairman Pat Wood defended the proposed federal intervention, noting that market driven transmission investment
“was not keeping up with load growth, and that “in every area of the country” FERC needed to “accelerate investment in
transmission infrastructure.”124 // pg. 59-61
RPS Aff 82
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Impacts

The collapse of the electricity grid will send us back to the stone age – the economy would be destroyed

Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive
Education Program
(Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth,
p.163-164 ) // SM

It is understandable that we would be unmindful of the critical role that oil plays in feeding our families, because the process
of growing food is so removed in time and place from our urban lives. The same holds true for the electricity that we have
come to rely on to maintain our daily routines. The electrical grid is the central nervous system that coordinates a densely
populated urban existence. Without electrical power, urban life would cease to exist, the information age would become a
faded memory, and industrial production would grind to a halt. The fastest way to ensure the collapse of the modern era
would be to pull the plug and turn off the flow of electricity. Light, heat, and power would all stop. Civilization as we know
it would come to an end.
It is hard to imagine what life would be like without electricity, although it has only been utilized as a source of energy for
less than a century. Most of our great-grandparents were born into a world with electricity. Today, we take electricity for
granted. That is because, food, it is abundantly available. We rarely think about where it comes from or how it gets to us. It is
a kind of stealth force, tucked away inside wires overhead, buried in the ground, or hidden inside our walls. Colorless and
odorless, it is an invisible but indispensable' presence in our lives.

Terrorist attacks on our grid are both likely to happen and will destroy the economy

Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive
Education Program
(Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth,
p.164 ) // SM

How likely is it that the electricity might go off, not just for a brief moment but for extended periods of time? Unfortunately,
the nation's electrical power grid is increasingly vulnerable to disruption, both by terrorists and energy shortages. Even before
the September attacks, government officials worried that American power plants, transmission lines, and the
telecommunications infrastructure could be targets for terrorists. In 1997, the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection issued a warning that cyber-terrorist’ next target might be the computer programs at the power-
switching centers that move electricity around the country. Disrupting the electrical grid could wreak havoc on the nation's
economic and social infrastructures. Richard A. Clarke, who heads the cyber-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration,
warns of an "Electronic Pearl Harbor." A report issued by the Institute for Security Technology Studies shortly after the
September 11th attacks cautioned that the American military reprisal against the al Qaeda network and the Taliban in
Afghanistan could be met by a counter-retaliatory strike by terrorists against the American electronic infrastructure. Jeffrey
A. Hunker, dean of the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University and formerly senior
director for Protection of Critical Infrastructure at the National Security Council, believes that the nation is "sitting on a cyber
time bomb.”
RPS Aff 83
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Impacts


Modern technology has made blackouts both more likely and more destructive

Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive
Education Program
(Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth,
p.166-7 ) // SM

Rolling blackouts hit California again in March 2001, affecting 800,000 people from Oregon to Orange County in Southern
California. This time, the reason was that not enough electricity was being generated by power plants to handle a spike in
energy demands caused by unusually warm spring weather. Unlike the earlier blackouts that hit the Northeast, the ones on the
West Coast shut down computer systems in businesses throughout the region, and this had a serious effect on commerce. In
the interim quarter century, the nation had become increasingly dependent on computers and the Internet and intranets for
information exchange, data storage, commercial transactions, banking and credit flows, and a host of other basic and vital
services. The ripple effect of a blackout of even a few minutes in duration is now far more serious than it was in the past,
when computers and software connections played a smaller role in day-to-day life.
It's worth noting that, while blackouts seriously disrupt the nation's information superhighway, the surge in computer use has
also had the effect of putting additional strains on the power grid in the U.S. and other countries, making electricity shortages
more likely in the future. Although it is true that microprocessors are becoming more efficient and able to process greater
stores of information in shorter time periods using less electrical load, the overall demand for digital power is increasing even
faster than the greater efficiencies that are coming on line. One pound of coal is needed to "create, package, store, and move
two megabytes of data," notes cyberspace analyst Peter W. Huber. The result is that the demand for horse-power to power
personal computers is doubling every few years. Huber says that not enough attention is being paid to the fact that chips are
running hotter, fans are whirring faster, and the power consumption of our disk drives and screens is rising.

The centralized grid is vulnerable to attack from anyone who has a PC, making attacks inevitable

Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive
Education Program
(Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.
164-5) // SM

The U.S. government has recently established a national Infrastructure Protection Center, a collaborative effort between law-
enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels to protect against computer crime aimed at disrupting America's
electronic infrastructure, but, privately, many experts in the field of electronic security are not confident about the possibility
of defending the nation’s electricity grid. The President's Commission's own report noted that, by the year 2001, more than 19
million people around the world would have the requisite computer skills to create minor disruptions to the nation's electric
power structure, and 1.3 million people would have the kind of sophisticated knowledge of how the nation's electrical power
grid and telecommunications network operate to create significant damage.
RPS Aff 84
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Renewables Solves


Renewable energy boosts reliability – preventing blackouts that will crush the economy

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

Greater Technical Availability


Any given hour there is a 10 percent risk that electricity from conventional power plants will be unavailable or limited due to
forced outages and mechanical failures. 143 A national RPS can help respond to such failures by promoting technologies that
have a higher rated technical reliability. Modern wind turbines, for example, have technical reliability above 97.5 percent,
compared to coal and natural gas power plants with technical reliabilities that rarely exceed 85 to 90 percent.144
Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of
hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability (since it is very unlikely that all turbines would be down at the
same time). And even when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive conventional power
plants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components all arranged in complex circuits prone to
mechanical failure.145 In fact, the International Energy Agency recently concluded that:
Bigger units of power plants bring with them the need for both greater operational and capacity reserve since outages cause
greater disturbances to the system. The higher the technical availability, the lower the probability of unexpected outages and
thus the lower the requirements of short-term operational reserve. Wind power plants actually score favorable against both
criteria, since they normally employ small individual units (currently up to 5 MW) and have a record of high technical
availability.146
In Europe, utilities and system operators have heavily promoted renewable energy for precisely this reason. The American
Wind Energy Association, for example, estimates that by 2005 Europe had installed almost three times as much wind energy
as the U.S.—48,500 MW of installed capacity, 9,000 MW of which had been installed in 2005 alone.147
Analysts have already confirmed the benefit of wind power’s greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a
November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota, concluded that “wind generation does make
a calculable contribution to system reliability” by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages.148
The U.S. government has already acknowledged the ability of renewable energy systems to deter major power outages and
provide consistent power supply. A recent assessment from the U.S. Department of Defense, for instance, found that
increased deployment of renewable energy resources significantly improved overall system reliability.149 The study, which
focused on the deployment of wind, solar, and geothermal electricity generators on and near military installations, found that:
1. Renewable energy facilities contribute to energy security by enabling military facilities to operate during simulated outages
2. Renewable energy generators enable the possibility of storing excess energy when power output is high
3. Renewable energy resources help “segregate” a service area from outside influences, creating “self-sustaining regional
islands” that can provide “critical installation functions”
4. Renewable power may be more reliable during routine or prolonged power outages than conventional generators, which
may have restricted hours of operation
Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy.
The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes,
they cost consumers an average of $150 to 400 billion every year.150 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the
annual costs of poor power reliability at $119 billion, or 44 percent of all electricity sales in 1995.151 // pg. 66-68
RPS Aff 85
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves


A federal RPS will accelerate infrastructure investments to accommodate new renewable development

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment


Some utilities object to aggressive RPS mandates on the grounds that greater penetration of renewables will require costly
transmission system upgrades. New wind projects, for example, will need to be located in windy areas that are often far from
the cities where the most electricity is consumed.116 Mandating that utilities invest in new renewable generation, therefore, is
also mandating investment in new and expensive transmission upgrades.
Creating incentives for utilities to invest in much needed transmission system upgrades actually may be one of the hidden
benefits of a national RPS.
Utilities can overcome public opposition to new transmission infrastructure by arguing for the need to access renewable
resources. While public reaction to renewable energy is far from uniform, using access to renewable resources as a
justification for new transmission wins local support for projects and speeds their development.
In addition, because renewable energy technologies have much shorter lead-times than conventional power plants, utilities
can start getting use out of new power lines even as they wait to bring large conventional projects online. Quicker use of new
transmission capacity benefits ratepayers because new rules allow utilities to start recovering the full cost of transmission
investments even before utilities have built new capacity to fill them. // pg. 59

RPS will boost investment in transmission and improve system reliability

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

F. A National RPS Improves Reliability


New studies reveal that a national RPS would contribute to overall transmission system reliability substantially more than a
state-by-state RPS approach. This is because, contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability of renewable
resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed.
Greater Geographical Dispersion
Electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes, the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand
variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity consumer, for example, starts drawing more
electricity than the system has allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are drawing from the grid that it is entirely likely
another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This “averaging” works in a similar fashion on the supply side of the grid. Individual
wind turbines
average out each other in electricity supply.139 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing
harder through another.
The European Wind Energy Association explains how the smaller unit size and larger geographical dispersion of wind turbines actually turns the variability of wind power into an
advantage over large, conventional systems:
Variations in wind energy are smoother, because there are hundreds or thousands of units rather than a few large power
stations, making it easier for the system operator to predict and manage changes in supply as they appear within the overall system. The system will not notice the
shut-down of a 2 MW wind turbine. It will have to respond to the shutdown of a 500 MW coal fired plant or a 1,000 MW nuclear plant instantly.140 •
According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the greater geographical distribution of wind turbines in Europe is already
reducing the volatility of renewable energy output. IEA has concluded, therefore, that the extent to which intermittency of renewable resources will become a
barrier to even greater renewable energy generation is, “mainly a question of economics and market organization,” not technology. 141
A study assessing the wind portfolios of all major European power providers concluded the same way, noting that:
A large contribution from wind energy … is technically and economically feasible, in the same order of magnitude as the
individual contributions from the conventional technologies developed over the past century. These large shares can be
realized while maintaining a high degree of system security.142 // pg. 65-66
RPS Aff 86
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves


Increased profits under an RPS will bring investment into transmission – costs can be recovered even before projects
are completed

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

E. A National RPS Speeds Cost Recovery


“Cash flow is critical to determination of a project’s expected return…What would investors like
to see? A national RPS – projects that are competitive across the board.”
John Ravis, TD Banknorth, 2007135
Under FERC’s new rules, utilities may begin to recover the costs of transmission projects before the projects are completed
and new generating capacity is available to use the infrastructure. In theory, this policy change decreases the cost to
ratepayers by allowing utilities to begin paying down the financing of a project sooner rather than later. However, such an
arrangement raises the obvious question: how do utilities know what a transmission project will cost prior to the project’s
completion?
FERC allows utilities to calculate a rate of return based on a hypothetical case that may be different from the actual
capitalization of the project.136 This “hypothetical capital structure” estimates how much debt a project will incur relative to
its equity. In theory, this calculation would require utilities to assess future revenues derived from the transmission costs of
electricity that runs through the new infrastructure. • However, FERC’s rules create an incentive for utilities to craft a
hypothetical structure with the goal of achieving excessive rates of return on transmission investments. While such gaming
may benefit investors, it is consumers who pay.137 Indeed, the American Public Power Association warns that hypothetical
capital structures “can result in an investor windfall that could substantially increase actual levels to far in excess of the
Commission’s allowed return on equity.”138 The only check against such abuse is FERC’s review of rate structures on a
case-bycase basis.
Because renewable energy projects have construction lead-times that are years (or even decades) faster than the lead-times
for conventional or nuclear facilities, they can start generating electricity to be sold over new transmission lines much faster.
Renewable energy systems, therefore, can start providing revenue to help pay down debt on transmission investments while
conventional plants are waiting to come online. If this expedited debt repayment is calculated in hypothetical capital
structures, it may depress the projected capital costs of transmission expansions and provide a natural check to excessive rate
increases. A national RPS mandate may therefore have the added benefit of decreasing the financing costs of new
transmission and protecting ratepayers from excessive price increases. // pg. 64-65

Plan solves blackouts

UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK

Would an RES affect the reliability of the energy system?


The electric system is designed to handle unexpected swings in energy supply and demand, such as significant changes in
consumer demand or even the failure of a large power plant or transmission line. There are several areas in Europe, including
Spain, Germany, and Denmark, where wind power already supplies over 20 percent of the electricity with no adverse effects
on the reliability of the system. Several important renewable energy sources, such as geothermal, bioenergy, and landfill gas
systems can operate around the clock. Studies by the EIA8 and the Union of Concerned Scientists9 show these renewable
energy facilities would generate over half of the nation’s non-hydro renewable energy under a 20 percent RES in 2020.
Renewable energy can increase the reliability of the overall system, by diversifying our resource base and using supplies that
are not vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. Solar energy is also generally most plentiful when it is
most needed—in the afternoon when air-conditioners are causing high electricity demand.
RPS Aff 87
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves


A national RPS will encourage and help utilities invest in transmission upgrades

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

D. Renewables Overcome Objections to Renewables


A national RPS may not only compel some utilities to invest in transmission upgrades sooner rather than later, it may actually
help them to do so. Often, utilities face public opposition when trying to win regulatory approval for new transmission lines.
Environmental groups may argue that the utility is overbuilding the system or that alternative solutions were overlooked.
Local landowners may object to transmission line rights-of-way or oppose substations located too close to their property. In
Faquier County, Virginia, one county Supervisor recently rallied local opposition to Dominion Power’s preferred route for a
500 kV line, declaring, “This is a fight to the death!”130 “Transmission is the most difficult infrastructure project to site and
more so than generation,” according to Ron Poff of American Electric Power (AEP). “You can get support from politicians.
But when the not-in-my-backyard factor weighs in, the politicians will pull the rip cord.”131 Poff should know. In 1990 AEP
sought permission to build an 89-mile transmission line through parts of West Virginia and Virginia. After major concessions
to objectors (including rerouting the line to avoid the area’s rivers and wildlife), the project finally began transmitting power
some 16 years later.
Delays in transmission siting and development add substantially to the cost of infrastructure projects. To site transmission,
utilities often incur significant pre-certification expenses and risk stranded costs should a permit be denied or public
opposition halt the project. In most cases the costs of project delays are capitalized as the project moves forward, creating
investor uncertainty and adding to construction costs which are eventually passed on to ratepayers.132 The longer a
transmission project is delayed, the more it costs to finance and the more utilities must raise rates to recover those costs.
Recent experiences suggest that opposition to transmission projects turns to broad public support if it is justified by the need
to interconnect new renewable generation.
In 2003, for example, Xcel Energy received approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to site 178
miles of new transmission lines and four new substations to facilitate a tripling in size of its Buffalo Ridge wind farm. Early
in the process, Xcel justified the new transmission as critical to expanding wind power generation at Buffalo Ridge, whose
transmission lines were already fully subscribed.
In a remarkable reversal of norms, local stakeholders accused the company of not proposing an adequate amount of new
transmission and not working to build it fast enough. One senior environmental consultant noted how local landowners and
advocates perceived environmental and economic benefits from renewable energy and that perception translated into
overwhelming support for Xcel’s transmission upgrades:
The combination of expanded use of renewable energy and the associated influx of potential economic gain in rural,
primarily agricultural, regions have led to unprecedented support of the transmission line projects. Environmental groups
view the increased use of a renewable energy source as a positive step and recognize the need for additional transmission
capacity to support siting of renewable generation facilities.133
Xcel’s experience with Buffalo Ridge is a case study for how other utilities can win public approval for network upgrades
that ultimately benefit all generators. By justifying transmission expansions through RPS-induced renewable generation,
utilities can overcome opposition that would delay or stop transmission upgrades under normal circumstances. The cost-
savings associated with quicker project approvals result in lower rates for consumers who would otherwise pay for the
delays.
And because modern transmission systems are required to respect FERC’s Open Access requirements, line owners are not
allowed to discriminate on the basis of generation source in the distribution of transmission resources. Therefore,
transmission built initially to access renewable resources can facilitate infrastructure expansions that benefit the entire
portfolio of generation sources. Transmission upgrades justified by substantial new renewable generation can buy time for
zero-emissions coal and carbon sequestration technologies to become commercially viable.134 // pg. 62-64
RPS Aff 88
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now


Terrorists are motivated to attack the energy grid because they know it is vulnerable

Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel


(Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 3-
30-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

The U.S. electric power system is a tempting target because electric energy is a large part of the U. S. economy and an
important ingredient for our culture and way of life. Although our electric energy production, storage, and transportation facilities are dispersed across the
United States, the interconnectedness, openness, and centralized locations make our system vulnerable to various forms of
terrorist attack. During electrical power outages of any length of time, homes and businesses currently stand to lose not only idle time, but money as well. Today people
and businesses have built their worlds around, and are in need of, reliable and uninterruptible sources of electrical energy. In
1978 explosives left by an unknown source left a hole in the Trans Alaskan pipeline which caused a spill of approximately 670,000 gallons of oil. In 2001 Al Qaeda operatives
destroyed the World Trade Center and have designs for more attacks against the U. S. economy.
As the World Trade Center was a central, large, local target, our nation’s electrical power generation network presents many
of the same vulnerabilities. In 2001 a man with a high powered rifle shot a hole in the Trans Alaskan pipeline, causing a spill of over 285,600 gallons and $8 million
dollars in lost royalty revenue and taxes and $20 million dollars in clean up costs.8 In 2003 a single downed power line caused 21 electric power plants to shut down leaving
approximately 50 million people in the Northeastern United States without electricity for over 30 hours.9 In 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated that a 15-minute electricity outage at
only one of their chip manufacturing plants would cost the company $30 million in lost production and recovery services, all while costing the electrical power company little at
all.10 These kinds of losses can devastate a region, not just the company.
The 2003 U. S. blackout lucidly demonstrates the vulnerability to our electrical power grid and the rapidly ensuing negative effects of electrical power loss. It demonstrates that a
tightly interconnected electric grid, as in our current system, can be not only its greatest strength but also its biggest weakness. When
there is a problem with even a
seemingly minor subsystem, in this case a broken power line, the interconnected grid itself becomes a very large
vulnerability.11
“The Great Blackout of 2003 will go down in history as one more wake-up call for a nation grown weary of them, a vivid demonstration that the most critical technology of
modern life – the electricity that powers virtually every aspect of it – is vulnerable to severe disruption, and growing more so by the day.”12 The loss of any major electrical power
plant could leave large regions of the country without electricity.13 Even an imbalance of electrical power on the grid can cause the “fail safe” system to fail, resulting in the loss of
electricity to tens of millions of people at once or, even more disrupting, an electrical power plant could burn out.
Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda have expressed an interest exploiting vulnerabilities and sensitivities at nuclear sites, and
Al Qaeda still has operatives at large in the UnitedStates.14 In 2002 Representative Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, was quoted as saying “the nation’s 103 nuclear power reactors are vulnerable to a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack but have taken few safety countermeasures
since September 11, 2001 even though they have been targeted by Al Qaeda…” Rep. Markey also said “the nation’s commercially operated reactors are at risk from a wide variety
of assaults, including sabotage from foreign workers who were not adequately screened…and are also vulnerable to the same kind of suicide hijackings that leveled the World
Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon…”15 There are currently twenty-one nuclear facilities located within a five-mile radius of an airport. Additionally, most nuclear facilities
store significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel in non-hardened structures. Rep. Markey also contends that the guards at these facilities are under trained and in some cases
incapable of combating an attack on the site from terrorists who want to gain entry.16 The impact of an attack to a nuclear facility could be devastating to the area.
Since the mid 1990s, security experts have shown concern about attacks on the electrical power gird. In a war game called “Eligible Receiver” in
1997, government hackers showed they could gain access to internal networks at electrical power plants in many of America’s cities.17 Guerrilla movements all over
the world have made a specialty of blowing up electrical power pylons. A single isolated bomb on a vital transmission corridor is an easily
recoverable event, but coordinated bombs could have a much larger effect.18 “Security experts have also been saying the electrical grid is vulnerable
to deliberate attack, most likely with bombs but also possible through a cyber-assault by hackers, terrorists or enemy
nations.”19 Additionally, the Department of Energy states on their website that “Today, we can anticipate facing an adversary with more resources and enhanced capabilities,
and who routinely plans to use suicidal tactics as a portion of their overall tactical plan.”
More than just the electric generation plants, there are other vulnerabilities, such as major transmission lines, large gas
pipelines, the increasing number of larger scale electric plants, and the nation’s gradually declining number of oil refineries
that need to be considered and discussed.21 Much attention since September 11, 2001 has been turned toward nuclear power plant security, but virtually little has
been done to protect the remaining plants and infrastructure that keeps them running.22 In 1999 there was a natural gas pipeline explosion in Washington State which spilled
230,000 gallons of natural gas and killed three people and more than 100,000 fish and aquatic life. The explosion destroyed one home, twenty-six acres of trees, and 2.5 miles of
vegetation.23 Strategic pipelines represent one of our largest vulnerabilities, as more than 90 percent of the United States’ new electrical power plants burn natural gas as their
fuel.24 A disruption in the natural gas supply, such as one that could occur through a pipeline problem such as a rupture, could result in millions of homes without heat or
electricity and thousands of factories and businesses not operating. This would cause major economic problems for the affected region in addition to the environmental problems of
rupture
RPS Aff 89
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now


The current form of energy transmission is extremely vulnerable to attack – this energy is vital to our society

Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel


(Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 3-
30-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Electrical energy is a staple of the American way of life. Nearly every activity we perform every day requires some application of electrical
energy, even the task of generating electrical energy. Americans rightly expect that electric power will be there when they need it, and have adapted their
lives to the plethora of cheap, available, and dependable electric power. Our way of life is sustained by electric power plants and the infrastructure
needed to move the electricity from the point of origin to the point of use. This system of tightly coupled, integrated and interdependent systems, however, also is a key
vulnerability to our way of life. Our
nation’s centralized electrical power generation system and its distribution network includes
fragilities and vulnerabilities that can be exploited by hostile or even natural acts. A more modern decentralized and distributed
electrical power generation model based upon distributed generation of electrical energy is our best defense.
Our country relies heavily upon centralized electrical power generation plants connected to a networked grid to supply our
needs. Those needs are high and growing; the typical home uses approximately 24 Kilowatts (kW) and the average McDonald’s uses about 500 kW of electricity
daily.1 Our need for electricity is constantly increasing, requiring the United States to import more electricity or build more plants to generate for its generation. In 2005 total
electric power consumption in the United States was 29,404,894 megawatts (MW) while total domestic electric production was only 20,365,258 MW, of which 18,532,836 MW
was generated using conventional methods and fuels such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and another 1,832,422 MW by using renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydro electric,
and geo thermal.2 The remaining 9,039,636 MW, or roughly 31 percent, was imported.
In our current electrical generation and distribution system, electric power moves from large central generating stations to the end consumers via a transmission grid. There
are
many opportunities for disruption within each of these subsystems, the first being the points of generation where raw materials, such as coal, oil,
natural gas, etc., are converted into electric power. Secondly, there are the receiving stations and substations, which are the mechanisms that
distribute the electricity to the consumers, such as hospitals, factories, homes, military bases, and schools, to name a few. Lastly, and
usually the least obvious but equally critical infrastructures in the process, are the high-tension electrical power lines that transmit the electricity
between the generation point and the receiving stations and the pipelines, rail lines, and roadways that brought the fuel to the
generation points3.
The major source of raw material for electricity generation is coal, which provides 49.7 percent of the total fuel used. The remaining raw material total is made up of Nuclear at
19.3 2 percent, natural gas at 18.7 percent, petroleum at 3 percent, hydroelectric at 6.5 percent, renewable (solar, wind, etc.) at 2.3 percent, other gases and fuels at 0.5 percent.4
Most of this material is brought to the generation point using railways, pipelines, or ships – creating a transportation extension to the electrical power grid itself. The nation’s
electrical power system includes 158,000 miles of primary electric transmission lines, 5,000 electrical power plants (totaling 800,000 MW) including 103 nuclear power reactors, 2
million miles of oil pipelines, 1.3 million miles of gas pipelines, 2,000 petroleum terminals, one million gas and oil wells, and 150 oil refineries.5 The electrical energy industry is a
large tightly interconnected web that reaches every corner of the country.6

Current efforts to address electric grid vulnerabilities are inadequate

CNN, 7 (Jeanne Meserve, “Mouse click could plunge city into darkness, experts say,” 9-27-2007,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText)

But five years later, there is no such program. Federal spending on electronic security is projected to increase slightly in the
coming fiscal year, but spending in the Department of Homeland Security is projected to decrease to less than $100 million,
with only $12 million spent to secure power control systems. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has
adopted cyber security standards for the electric utility industry, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has
regulations in the offing. Some outside experts say neither go far enough to protect the industry from cyber attack. Groups
representing the electric utility industry declined to comment for this report. Despite all the warnings and worry, there has not
been any publicly known successful cyber-attack against a power plant's control system. And electric utilities have paid more
attention to electronic risks than many other industries, adopting voluntary cyber-standards. "Of all our industries, there are
only a couple -- perhaps banking and finance and telecommunications -- that have better cyber-security or better security in
general then electric power," Borg said. And DHS notes that it uncovered the vulnerability discovered in March, and is taking
steps with industry to address it. While acknowledging some vulnerability, DHS's Jamison said "several conditions have to be
in place. ... You first have to gain access to that individual control system. [It] has to be a control system that is vulnerable to
this type of attack." "You have to have overcome or have not enacted basic security protocols that are inherent on many of
those systems. And you have to have some basic understanding of what you're doing. How the control system works and
what, how the equipment works in order to do damage. But it is, it is a concern we take seriously." "It is a serious concern.
But I want to point out that there is no threat, there is no indication that anybody is trying to take advantage of this individual
vulnerability," Jamison said. Borg notes that industry will have to remain forever vigilant at protecting control systems. "It
will always be an ongoing problem. It's something we will have to be dealing with [for] lots of years to come," he said.
RPS Aff 90
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Impacts


A terrorist attack on the electric grid would devastate the economy – models and empirics prove
ICF Consulting, 3 (The Economic Cost of the Blackout: An issue paper on the Northeastern Blackout, August 14, 2003,
http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Energy/doc_files/blackout-economic-costs.pdf)

A coordinated attack on a power grid could lead to even more significant economic damages, both as a direct consequence of
the attack, as well as through the ripple effects resulting from the strong inter-linkages between industry sectors.
The recent power blackout in the northeast has revived the discussion on the need to upgrade the transmission infrastructure. While that debate has its own merit, a related and a potentially more threatening
issue to be addressed is the vulnerability of our electrical grid to terrorist attacks.
ICF Consulting recently raised similar concerns in a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on the transmission grid in California. In the simulation, we found a coordinated attack in California could lead to
significant economic damages, both as a direct consequence of the attack, as well as through the ripple effects due to the strong inter-linkages between industry sectors. In this issue paper, we use some of the
insights gained from the California simulation to measure the economic costs of the recent blackout and reiterate some of the lessons learned from the exercise.
What was the cost of the
Northeast Blackout of 2003? One way to estimate the economic costs of a power outage is to calculate consumer’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid such outages. This gives a measure of the “cost of
reliability” of electrical services measured in terms of the valuation of the service placed by its customers. Several studies provide survey-based estimates of this WTP for different groups of electric customers.
To estimate the total economic cost of this blackout, we multiply the average value of electricity for the affected customers (including residential, commercial, industrial, and others), by the preliminary data on
the magnitude and duration of this blackout.
Based on previous analyses by ICF Consulting, we can assume that the value of electricity to consumers (measured as their WTP to avoid outages) is approximately 100 times the retail price of electricity. For
example, an analysis done on the 1977 outage in New York City that resulted in a loss of more than 5,000 MW and lasted for 25 hours estimated that the direct cost was about $0.66/kWh (for example, losses
due to spoilage, and lost production and wages), and an indirect cost of $3.45/kWh (due to the secondary effects of the direct costs).1 Thus the total unit cost of that blackout was $4.11/kWh or over
$4,000/MWh in 1977. The national average retail price of electricity in 1977 for all customers was about $34/MWh.2 Similar ratios were identified during the simulation scenario on the California grid.
Though the data for the August 2003 outage is preliminary and further refinements will be necessary, we calculate initial estimates of the economic costs of this outage based on these ratios above. Instead of
providing only a point estimate for the total cost, we define a range that is 80 times and 120 times the appropriate retail electricity price for the lower and upper bounds, respectively. Also, since there is
considerable seasonal and regional variation in electricity prices, we use the August 2002 average electricity price of $93/MWh for the affected region (provided by the Energy Information Administration) to
calculate the value of electricity to the customers affected by this outage.
Details on the exact extent and duration for different blackout stages are sketchy. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) the initial blackout that started around 4:00 p.m. (EST)
on August 14, 2003, resulted in a loss of 61,800 MW and affected more than 50 million people. NERC also reports that by 11:00 a.m. (EST) on August 15, about 48,600 MW of lost power was restored, leaving
a residual loss of about 13,200 MW. Finally, at 11:00 a.m. (EST) on August 16, NERC announced that “virtually all customers have been returned to electricity service”.3 The precision of the cost estimate is
directly correlated to the accuracy of the unconfirmed reports on the extent and duration of the outage. Since much of the data is still being collected, ICF Consulting made reasonable assumptions regarding the
“recovery path” from this outage to give an overall picture consistent with the information reported by NERC.
Specifically, for this analysis, we assume that the initial outage of 61,800 MW lasted for 4 hours and then half of that was restored, with the other half (30,900 MW) being the shortfall for another 10 hours.
Given that the next announcement from NERC was issued approximately 18 hours after the start of the outage, we assume that another one-half of the unserved 30,900 MW was restored after 14 hours and the
remaining loss of 15,450 MW lasted for the subsequent 4 hours. This gives a total of 18 hours for the first phase of the blackout. Using similar arguments for the remaining period of the blackout, we assume
more than 13,000 MW of customer load was lost for another 14 hours after which 6,600 MW was the shortfall for another 10 hours. Finally, on the third day of this blackout, 2,000 MW was the loss for 20
hours and another 1,000 MW was the shortfall for the final 10 hours of this blackout. This gives a total outage period of 72 hours.
the economic cost of this outage is estimated to be between $7 and
Using this scenario and the average electricity price for the affected region from August 2002,
$10 billion for the national economy. Further refinements to these estimates are likely as new details about the outage pattern are released.
How could terrorism complicate matters?
a terror-induced blackout could
Although the cost of the August 2003 blackout is not expected to prove devastating for our $10 trillion economy, it is important to keep in mind that
prove significantly more costly and have potentially debilitating impacts on the affected region as well as the entire country.
As the economy tries to recover from recession, a sabotage-related shock that could affect such a huge area of the country
could significantly increase the cost burden and prove fatal for the recovery.4 Some of the added costs from a terrorism-related transmission grid attack would
be: Damage to equipment – a terrorist attack could not only lead to a transmission grid malfunction, but also could lead to significant damage to the equipment, resulting in higher costs and
more time required for repair and replacement. Hangover effect –In the simulation referenced above, the most significant economic burden was borne by the tourism industry as people became
nervous and avoided travel even after electricity was fully restored. A similar blackout caused by a terrorist attack would lead to substantially higher costs to the hotel, airline, and other service industries that
are directly impacted by tourism.
It is important to remember that the economic costs of the blackout would have been significantly higher had it been caused by a terrorist attack.
The need is even greater now to think about the critical infrastructure asset—electric transmission grid—and ways to improve its security and reliability. Here are some of the areas of critical infrastructure
protection (supported by a White House report) that need further study: Understand the level of dependencies between different parts of the transmission grid so that we can establish protection priorities
and strategies. Study the need for increased redundancy in our transmission infrastructure and build it making greater investment in reserve equipment. Increased generation will improve the reliability of
the whole network and reduce its vulnerabilities. Identify critical equipment stockpiles so there is minimum delay in recovery and restoration and analyze ways to standardize equipment and increase
component interchangeability. Increase distributed generation such as through promoting combined heat and power technologies (commonly called cogeneration technologies) to relieve transmission
bottlenecks. Analyze the risks faced by these critical facilities, as well as the steps we can take for the actual physical protection of our nation’s assets, so that we are better prepared to guard against such
events.
Another important component of a successful critical infrastructure protection strategy is to have adequate economic policies in place that harden the economy against such disruptions. This component assumes
A terrorist attack on vital infrastructures will also do serious harm to the
increased significance as the economy recovers from an economic recession.
tourism industry, resulting in significant unemployment as well as substantial costs for the insurance industry. According to reports in
The New York Times, preliminary estimates of the insurance industry burden of this recent blackout put the figure at $3 billion.

The impact is economic shutdown – unless the grid is decentralized, “a few bombs” can shut down the entire country
WSJ, 7 (William Tucker, “Electrical Storm - With demand skyrocketing, wires fraying and political resolve flickering, how long will the lights stay on?,”
7-21-2007, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118497036898073460.html)
*The books reviewed are “The Grid” by Phillip F. Schewe, who has a doctorate in particle physics and is the chief science writer at the American Institute of
Physics , and “Lights Out” by Jason Makansi, previous editor-in-chief of Power and Electric Power International magazines and as a contributing editor of
Electrical World magazine.

The sites most vulnerable to attack on the grid are not nuclear reactors -- their 4-foot-thick concrete containment structures can withstand the impact of a
Try this.
The real vulnerability, says Mr. Makansi, is the handful of substations around the country where the
jetliner while sustaining little more than a dent.
Northeast, Western, Canadian and Texas grids interlink. These isolated facilities, whose locations remain undisclosed for obvious reasons, are
protected by little more than barbed wire. Taking them out -- which might be done with a few well-placed bombs -- could
shut down the entire country.
Mr. Makansi identifies the aging and neglected long- distance transmission lines as the grid's Achilles' heel. Much of the jury-
rigged system has not been upgraded since the black-and-white television era, even as it struggles to accommodate the
growing demands of air conditioning and the information economy. Yet Mr. Makansi doesn't quite diagnose the problem correctly. Like many engineers, he is
nostalgic for the days of regulated monopoly, when the utilities built what the state approved at a guaranteed profit. The 1990s deregulation, he charges, is at fault. But it is precisely because transmission lines
are still not privatized -- serving instead as "common carriers" -- that this tragedy of the commons is occurring..
RPS Aff 91
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Impacts


A single EMP attack would destroy the electricity grid of the United States – this will cause cascading collapses in
critical infrastructure that we can’t recover from

Wood, 5 – Acting Chairman Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack
(Dr. Lowell, Opening Statement, Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Before the
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 3-8-2005,
http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_wood.pdf)

What is particularly significant about EMP is that a single high-altitude nuclear detonation can produce EMP effects that can
potentially disrupt or damage electronic and electrical systems over much of the United States, virtually simultaneously, at a
time determined by an adversary. Thus, EMP is one of a small number of threat-types that has the potential to hold American
society seriously at risk and that might result in the defeat of our military forces. The electromagnetic field pulses produced
by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power
systems, electronics, and information systems upon which any reasonably advanced society – including our own – depends
vitally. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to
qualify as catastrophic to the Nation. Depending on the specific characteristics of the EMP attack, unprecedented cascading
failures of our major infrastructures could result, in which failure of one infrastructure could ‘pull down’ others dependent on
its functioning, and the failure of these, in turn, could seriously impede recovery of the first infrastructure-to-fail. In such
events, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult, and would seriously degrade the overall viability of our
Nation and the safety, even the lives, of very large numbers of U.S. citizens.
The primary avenues for EMP imposition of catastrophic damage to the Nation are through our electric power infrastructure
and thence into our telecommunications, energy, and other key infrastructures. These, in turn, can seriously impact other vital
aspects of our Nation’s life, including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and health care to the citizenry;
trade; and production of goods and services. The recovery of any one of these key National infrastructures is dependent on
others working. The longer the basic outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery of any of them will be. It is
possible – indeed, seemingly likely -- for sufficiently-severe functional outages to become mutually reinforcing, until a point
at which the degradation of the set of infrastructures could have irreversible effects on the country’s ability to support any
large fraction of its present human population.

The electricity grid is critical – making it more resilient will help the US recover from other attacks and natural
disasters

Wood, 5 – Acting Chairman Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack
(Dr. Lowell, Opening Statement, Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Before the
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 3-8-2005,
http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_wood.pdf)

Specific recommendations are provided in the EMP Commission’s report with respect to both the particulars for securing
each of the most critical National infrastructures against EMP threats and the governing principles for addressing these issues
of national survival and recovery in the aftermath of an EMP attack. Much of the problem can be addressed very
economically, without major capital investments, but by developing effective plans to meet the challenges posed by EMP
threats. For example, one major Commission finding is that the electric power grid is the “keystone” infrastructure, upon
which all other infrastructures depend. Yet today, there is no plan for “black-starting” the power grid in the event of a
Nation-wide collapse of the system. If the electric power grid can be quickly recovered, the other infrastructures can also be
recovered adequately in the aftermath of an EMP attack. Making the key aspects of the Nation’s infrastructures more robust
against EMP attack will also pay dividends in protecting against other types of large-scale problems with them, such as
natural disasters.
RPS Aff 92
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation


Expanding renewable is key to create an energy grid that is resilient against terrorist attacks

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

a larger use of renewable energy systems could provide the nation with enhanced energy security. When distributed,
In addition,
such generators are far more resilient against terrorist attacks and severe weather events. Deploying small-scale renewable
energy systems in targeted areas can create a more secure transmission and distribution grid by strengthening transformers,
local taps, feeders, and switchgears, especially in congested areas or regions where the permitting of new transmission networks is difficult. A 1992 Pacific Gas and Electric Analysis comparing 50 1-MW
distributed photovoltaic plants versus one 50-MW central PV plant in Carissa Plains, Calif., found that the grid advantages (in forms of load savings and congestion) more than offset their generation
A similar study conducted in New York concluded that modern wind plants with
disadvantages (in terms of high capital cost and interconnection).49
reactive power compensation can actually improve system stability following a major power system disturbance.50

RPS is key to promoting distributed renewable energy technology that reduces grid vulnerability

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, "State Efforts to Promote Renewable
Energy: Tripping the Horse with the Cart?" Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity
generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in
incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency
has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages.[28]In contrast to the security risks of large centralized
decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes
generators,
the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to refer to renewable energy
systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed
siting.[29] A national RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric
infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.

The plan solves – renewable energy technology will be adopted and replace outdated grid technology

Asmus, 1 – AHC Group Senior Associate


(Peter, “The War against Terrorism Helps Build the Case for Distributed Renewables,” Electricity Journal, 12-21-2001, from
Science Direct Database)

III. A New Smarter and Cleaner Distributed Model


The huge potential costs and liabilities linked to large-scale fossil and nuclear generating sources are avoided entirely with
solar PV and other distributed, renewable energy systems. One lesson the horrible tragedy of Sept. 11 may teach us is that our energy supply is far too
dependent on security and military interventions. We now have the tools and technologies necessary to propel a revolution in energy that
mimics, to a large extent, the evolution in scale evident in the telecommunications and computer industries. These new
technologies — solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and wind turbines — are the equivalent to the wireless cell phones and
portable laptops that replaced traditional grid-connected phones and huge mainframe computers, respectively.
Just how valuable can these distributed renewable energy systems be? With solar PV and small wind turbines, there are no fuel costs and associated military
expenditures, no vulnerable pipelines that require security surveillance, no need for miles upon miles of gigantic transmission lines that could also
be terrorist targets. Indeed, these distributed micro-generators can operate independently from the existing grid or be grid-
connected.
With the advent of electricity deregulation and the corresponding launch of the California Energy Commission's Emerging Renewable Energy Buy-Down Rebate program, more
and more Californians across the state who are connected to the grid are now installing the latest generation of small-scale renewable energy systems. Under this program, the state
pays half of the installation costs of grid-connected systems, whose owners sell back to the grid the electricity they can't use to help stabilize the grid. At today's volatile prices,
these systems will be paid off in less than 10 years and then provide literally free electricity to the lucky consumers that purchased them. According to the Energy Commission,
buy-down rebate applications for solar and wind systems have been averaging roughly 250 per month in 2001.
RPS Aff 93
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation


Plan is key to solving – federal RPS removes barriers to distributed generation technologies

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // DNB

Limits on Distributed Generation (DG) The current state-by-state approach to RPS is also inhibiting the expansion of
distributed generation technologies by forcing unusually prohibitive operational procedures. Inconsistent tariff structures and
interconnection requirements, for example, add complexity (and therefore cost) to distributed generation projects. In fact, the
Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric generating and electric distribution companies committed to responsible
environmental stewardship, forecasts that fuel cells and community-scale wind energy projects are unlikely to play a
meaningful role in state RPS markets until policymakers adopt a more comprehensive and uniform approach.31

Renewable technology development is key to distributed generation

Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel


(Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 3-
30-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Not all renewable energy projects have to be as large scale as these. I mention them to demonstrate that the technologies are maturing and are
gaining investment for large-scale adaptation and conventional use by power companies. There are new technologies that are
allowing solar and wind sources to be optimized for small scale, single building use. A company called XsunX has created a transparent solar cell film
technology for use in commercial buildings. Buyers can apply this film to the typical glass of commercial buildings and generate electricity. This makes all of the exterior windows of the building solar panels
A very promising technology and application that does not only provide power for the
capable of producing electrical energy for the entire building.
building, but, adds electric power to the grid. Biomass, or farm waste, is a fuel that made from the conversion of waste through anaerobic digesters that break down waste
into methane, which, when burned, create electricity. This application has very specific uses in the farming industry, however most farmers view
this technology as a solution to their waste management problem and not as a solution to an energy problem, but it can be both.56 Currently, the trends point that in the next few years thousands of dairies,
feedlots, hog farms, and poultry operations will install this technology.

Renewables are key to creating distributed generation – this prevents an attack on the electricity grid that brings us
back to the Stone Age

UPI, 6 (Meredith Mackenzie, United Press International, “Minimizing Risk of Attack on Electric Grid,” 3-09-2006,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Minimizing_Risk_Of_Attack_On_Electric_Grid.html)
But Joel Gordes, a former Air Force navigator and head of Environmental Energy Solutions, warned Tuesday at the Northeast Sustainable Energy annual conference that this fancy of director Stephen
Soderberg's imagination could become a very real terrorist attack on America's centralized power system. "You can get a relatively low-cost
($400) weapons system called a flux-compression generator that can make an electromagnetic pulse," Gordes said. "We used to talk about
how every time you blow up a nuclear devise you get an electromagnetic pulse that will wipe out your semiconductors. Basically, it would take us pretty much back to the stone
age ... anything with a computer chip in it would not work." Gordes said that the centralized power grid has long been seen as vulnerable and recently a terrorist target.
Richard Clark, a former White House counter-terrorism adviser, has warned as much. "The owners and operators of electric power grids, banks and railroads; they're the ones who have to defend our
Gordes offered a solution in his Tuesday workshop -- distributed
infrastructure. The government doesn't own it, the government doesn't operate it, the government can't defend it."
generation. The Department of Energy defines distributed generation as "a variety of small, modular power-generating technologies that used to improve the operation of the local electricity delivery
system. These systems can be combined with energy storage and power management and are usually, but not always, connected to an electricity distribution grid." This means smaller power
generation plants, including nuclear, solar, and biodiesel, that are located closer to the homes and businesses where the power is
meant to be used. This reduces energy lost in transmission and creates what Gordes calls "microgrids." Not only is distributed
generation an excellent opportunity to integrate renewable technologies, said Gordes, but a redundant, separately administered,
power system would lesson the effect of a terrorist attack on the system by decentralizing power. The concept is as old as the
stock market: diversify in order to reduce risk. Distributed generation, Gordes writes in NESEA's publication "Northeast Sun," offers multiple benefits. "(Placement of diverse
fuel generators) avoids costly vulnerable, ugly, and inefficient transmission systems and increases energy security in two ways. First, it reduces our dependence upon foreign oil and the increasing need for
foreign liquefied natural gas. Second, it provides resiliency when used with the existing power grid, providing high reliability and power quality demands in a digital society." Dave Sjoding manages the
Northwest Combined Heat and Power Application Center in Olympia, Washington, where six states collaborate on distributed generation projects that serve to provide both heat and power. He said that despite
transitional costs, utility companies benefit because a great degree of stability is added to the existing grid through the integration of alternative energy sources. "Distributed generation reduces transmission and
distribution issues," he said. "Now the power is produced locally and used locally and you're not having to move it a huge distance." And as far as national security goes, Sjoding said that the benefit is obvious,
" As you bring distributed power into the system, you ensure that all the eggs are not in one basket."
RPS Aff 94
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation


Distributed generation is possible – new solar energy technology will help us get off of the energy grid

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2003 (“Taking A Load Off The National Power Grid: New Solar-powered Window
System Heats, Cools, Lights, And Shades Commercial Buildings,” 8-27-2003, ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com
/releases/2003/08/030826065552.htm)

solar-powered, integrated window system that could significantly reduce


A team of researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has developed the first of its kind
dependency on the same energy grid that caused the biggest power outage in U.S. history. Designed to function as a shading system, the Dynamic Shading Window System (DSWS) uses a
newly developed solar-energy technology to convert the sun's light and diverted heat into storable energy that can be used to also efficiently heat, cool, and artificially light the same office building.
Developed primarily for commercial buildings, the DSWS blocks the harshest rays while allowing the most pleasing daylight to stay in a building's interior.
"Our system, which can be incorporated into existing commercial buildings as well as new ones, could become a significant
part in the development of an overall energy plan to reduce dependence on the national power grid. This could save
businesses -- the biggest consumers of energy -- untold utility costs and significantly reduce U.S. need for fossil fuels," says Anna
Dyson, assistant professor of architecture who co-developed the DSWS.
How It Works
The DSWS system is made of clear plastic panels that fit in between two panes of glass. On each panel are dozens of small, pyramid-shaped units, or "modules," made from semi- translucent focusing plastic
lenses, that track the motion of the sun. Sensors, embedded in the walls or the roof, ensure that the units are always facing the sun to capture all incoming rays while at the same time deflecting harsh, unwanted
rays from a building's interior.
Each unit holds a miniaturized photovoltaic (PV), or solar-cell, device used to collect light and heat that is then transferred into useable energy to run the motors, also embedded in the building's interior walls.
The remaining energy is used for heat, air conditioning, and artificial lighting. The surplus energy can be directly and automatically distributed through wires inside a building's walls, or can be stored in a group
of batteries, for later use.
"This solar-powered technology will provide the typical business office the most superior lighting available--natural daylight. It will allow for better views outside your window that are no longer hidden by a
standard shade or obscured by penetrating glare," says Dyson.

Distributed generation uses renewable technology – best suited for the job

Kendall, No Date – CLP Research Institute Managing Director


(Gail, “Renewable Energy and Distributed Resources: A Competitive Combination?”
https://www.clpgroup.com/Abt/Res/TechPpr/Documents/01efacdcdc264f06bb0df29278062e00repapermay05.pdf)

Renewable electric power generation includes hydropower, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar and ocean energy. These also
find applications in a wide range of sizes, including the full spectrum of distributed resource applications. But some forms of
renewable energy are better suited to distributed generation than others. Biomass, wind and solar energy are particularly well-
suited to distributed generation. The performance of distributed wind power, and particularly of solar electricity, can be
enhanced by combination with other generation and/or energy storage devices. Many distributed renewable systems are
hybrids.

Status quo provides multiple barriers to development of DE technology – a federal RPS would solve all of them

CAEM, 2 ("The Role of the Federal Government in Distributed Energy: A Report of the Distributed Energy Task Force,"
Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets, January, http://www.caem.org/website/pdf/DE_Federal_Role_Final.pdf)

Environmental Regulations. Environmental regulations are driven by federal and state laws, but administered at the state
level and through regional boards. The states have some discretion regarding environmental regulation, which results in
significant variations in policies and procedures from state to state. This variation adds significant complication to the
manufacturing of DE equipment and systems on a mass scale, and to the adoption of DE by national companies, which must
deal with widely varying regulations in each state in which they operate. It also adds complications for DE developers, which
must be positioned to assist customers in dealing with a wide range of environmental regulations. There are also issues of
fairness which are not unique to DE. Environmental requirements are onerous for new sources, while old power plants are
grandfathered. Past decisions award pollution "rights" to incumbents, and this represents a large hurdle for new technologies
to overcome.
RPS Aff 95
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – A2: Wind Turbines Will be Attacked


Wind turbines won’t be attacked

Trainer, 7 (Ted, “Aha! Offshore Wind’s Fatal Flaw,” Transition Culture, 12-13-2007,
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/13/aha-offshore-winds-fatal-flaw/)

I picked up a copy of the free paper Metro yesterday. In the light of the recent announcement that the Government plans to
expand the amount of offshore wind as part of its half-hearted attempt to assure everyone that business as usual is still
possible, the usual tired old rubbish wheeled out against wind power has been aired once again on the radio and in the papers.
A letter in Metro however, raised an argument against wind power that I have never come across before. A letter from David
Hill of the World Innovation Foundation, ran thus;
Government business secretary John Hutton’s announcement that Britain could have one wind turbine every half mile along
the nation’s coastline by 2020 is a terrorist’s dream come true. For, if we are to become so reliant upon this isolated energy
generation, there is no way to protect them.
I have since been wracking my brain as to how a terrorist cell might actually set about making any meaningful impact of
thousands of wind turbines situated out at sea. They might hijack an airplane and crash it into, at most, 4 turbines, a
somewhat pointless exercise. They might attempt to haul a large amount of welding equipment out to sea, with a generator, in
order to try and fell a turbine, a pretty momentous task, and one that would presumably be spotted remotely pretty quickly.
They could sail out with a boat full of semtex and then sail from turbine to turbine setting explosive charges. Beyond that I
am pretty non-plussed as to how even the most dedicated and maniacal terrorist could have any significant impact on
thousands of wind turbines located off shore.
I have heard some daft arguments against wind turbines in my time, but I think this is by far the silliest. It is if a terrorist cell
decides to target a nuclear power station, or even a coal-fired power station that we need to be extremely worried, as the
results could be catastrophic. Surely the terrorist threat is a reason to support wind, not reject it. Or have I missed something
here?!
I wonder if the same logic, that decentralised energy systems are somehow an inherent magnet for terrorists, extends to other
technologies? Does putting solar panels on the roof make you more or a target for terrorists? Would a wood pellet boiler
mean that you could be targetted? If Mr Hill has any specific information, I think we should be told.
RPS Aff 96
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – Economy Internals


Unemployment triggers a rise in food and oil prices and a weak dollar and increases the risk of recession

Nilsson in 8 (Hans, FX Strategist at CMS Forex, “Dollar Drops on Surging Unemployment Rate”, 6-6-08,
http://www.fxstreet.com/technical/forex-strategy/daily-forex-strategy-briefing/2008-06-08.v02.html)

The dollar dropped against its rivals except the Canadian dollar Friday after the May US jobless rate posted its sharpest one-month
increase in 22 years and employment fell for the fifth consecutive month. The surge in the unemployment rate is worrisome.
The yen and Swiss franc rose on increased risk aversion as US stocks declined the most in 15 months and crude oil and gold
rallied.
The EUR/USD had its largest weekly rally since the end of March on further signs of a deepening US economic contraction. The worsening US labor market
situation is increasing both the euro’s interest and growth advantage as the higher US recession risk is diminishing the
chances of any Federal Reserve interestrate hikes. The EUR/USD’s failure to break the 1.54 support and the possibility for a European Central Bank rate hike
in July also contributed to this week’s gain. The EUR/USD is in a well-defined uptrend; however, having been in a sideways pattern since March on optimism the US economy
would stabilize and the Fed would reverse its super-easy monetary policy stance. Resistances exist in the 1.58-area and at the 1.6018 alltime high. A penetration of these resistances
would be bullish for the EUR/USD, while a break of support would be bearish.
Financial and Economic News and Comments
US & Canada
US nonfarm payrolls fell a less-than-expected 49,000 in May, a fifth-straight drop, after April’s revised larger drop 28,000 and March’s revised larger drop 88,000, data from the
Labor Department showed. Private (nongovernment) payrolls fell 66,000. The weakest sectors were temporary employment (down 30,000), retail (down 27,000), manufacturing
(down 26,000), and home construction (down 25,000). The strongest sector was health care (up 42,000). The unemployment rate jumped more than forecast to 5.5% in May, its
highest level since October 2004, from 5.0% in April. The half-point rise was the biggest since February 1986. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. Average
hourly earnings increased a slightly more-thanexpected 0.3% m/m, to $17.94, and rose 3.5% y/y. The
overall figures show US consumers already facing a
housing slump and rising oil and food prices confront more pressure from a weakening labor market; thus, reducing
expectations of Federal Reserve interest-rates hikes.

Unemployment kills confidence, weakens dollar, prevents rate cuts that curb inflation, and heightens oil prices.

Agence-France Presse in 8 (“Dollar weakens on downbeat economic news”, 6-25-08,


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6qzNTW3dlXAAtf6AZnz7PuMR22w)

NEW YORK (AFP) — The dollar weakened against other major currencies Tuesday in the face of downbeat economic news on US
consumer confidence and the housing market, and as the US central bank was expected to keep interest rates unchanged.
The subdued economic readings weighed on the dollar as analysts said they lessened the likelihood that the Federal Reserve
would hike interest rates anytime soon despite mounting inflation concerns tied to soaring crude oil prices.
The European single currency rose to 1.5565 dollars around 2100 GMT, up from 1.5513 dollars in New York late Monday.
Against the Japanese currency, the dollar was changing hands at 107.83 yen, down from 107.87 yen a day earlier.
The dollar endured fresh declines as an index tracking US consumer confidence plunged in June amid growing concerns
about jobs and the economy. The index is watched closely by the markets because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds
of all US economic growth.
The Conference Board, a business research firm, said its monthly index of consumer confidence, which has slid all year, tumbled to 50.4 points in June from 58.1 points in May.
The June consumer confidence reading was the fifth weakest since the launch of the index in 1967. The decline in confidence
was steeper than the expected 57.0 point reading forecast by most analysts.

Unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector, kills confidence and prevents rate hike.

Forex Street in 8 (“Dollar Weakens As Consumer Confidence Falls to a 16-Year Low”, 6-25-08,
http://www.commodityonline.com/futures-trading/forex/Dollar-weakens-as-consumer-confidence-falls-to-16-year-low-
573.html)

According to the data released by US Labor Department last week, the initial jobless claims filed in the week ending June 14
fell by 5,000 to 381,000; but the four-week moving average for initial claims increased by 3,250 to 375,250.
An unexpectedly large contraction in New York State manufacturing in May also added pressure on the green back. The
Federal Reserve Bank of New York's "Empire State" index showed manufacturing in the state shrunk in June for the fourth
time in five months, increasing doubts on the health of the US economy. The data diminished expectations of a Fed rate hike.
But as per data from Labor Department, US consumer prices rose at the fastest pace in six months, strengthening the growing
expectations for a Federal Reserve interest-rate hike. As per the data, US consumer price index climbed 0.6% in May.
The combination of rising inflation and struggling economies is making it difficult for markets to gauge the interest rate
outlook and is confusing the traders.
RPS Aff 97
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs


Renewable technologies create 10 times as many jobs as similar investments in conventional energy would.

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)

F. More Manufacturing Jobs


Renewable technologies create far more jobs than fossil fuel or nuclear generation facilities. The United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) assessed the employment impact of various electricity generation technologies and found that renewable energy technologies renewable energy technologies
generate three times as many jobs per megawatt of installed capacity as fossil fuel-based generation.
The wind industry demonstrates the disparity quite clearly. According to a survey by Danish wind energy manufacturers, 17 worker-years are created for every megawatt of wind
energy manufactured, and five worker-years for every megawatt installed:
Renewable energy technologies are up to three times more employment-intensive than fossil fuel power options: 188 worker-
years are created locally for every megawatt of small solar electric systems. In Germany, wind power accounted for 1.2 percent of electricity
generation in 1998 and the industry employed 15,000 people, compared to nuclear with 33 percent share and about 40,000 jobs, and coal with a 26 percent share and 80,000 jobs.
Based on a market share comparison, the potential to create jobs is far greater for wind then for coal and nuclear options.
In the year 2000, the wind energy industry provided more than 85,000 jobs worldwide and UNEP projects that the sector
could provide up to 1.8 million jobs by 2020.
Job creation potential is not limited to the wind industry alone. The U.N. reviewed several studies demonstrating that up to 188 worker-years are created locally for every megawatt
of small solar electric systems installed (these jobs come primarily from local retailing, installation and maintenance).
UNEP also found that local production of solar modules can contribute substantially to a country’s manufacturing infrastructure.98
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found an even larger job creation ratio in the United States. In 2004, Professor Daniel Kammen, head of UC Berkeley’s
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), directed a team that reviewed 13
reports all confirming that investments in renewable energy
technologies would produce as much as 10 times as many American jobs than comparable investments in fossil fuel or
nuclear technologies.99 Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power installed, and per unit of
energy produced, than the fossil fuel-based energy sector. All states of the Union stand to gain in terms of net employment from the implementation of a portfolio of clean energy
policies at the federal level.100
The UC Berkeley team calculated that a national RPS of 20 percent by 2020 could create as many as 240,000 new jobs
versus only 75,000 jobs if the same energy were provided by fossil fuels. Kammen suggested that the large disparity partly
lies in the fact that the employment rate in fossil fuel-related industries in the U.S. has been declining steadily for several
years, while the renewable energy sector enjoys the potential of vast expansions in manufacturing, delivery, construction,
installation and maintenance.

A 20% RPS by 2020 jumpstarts the economy by massively increasing jobs and boosting investment.

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)

Renewables generate 80% more jobs than equal investment in fossil fuels.
A 20% RPS by 2020 would create as many as 240,000 new jobs – in manufacturing, construction, operations, maintenance,
shipping, sales and finance – versus 75,000 jobs if the energy were provided by fossil fuels.
A national RPS creates new jobs in states with the greatest manufacturing losses.
The 20 states that would gain the most manufacturing jobs from a national investment in wind energy, for example, represent
more than 2/3 of the manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. between 2001 and 2004.
Quicker lead times minimize expensive construction cost overruns.
Renewable technologies have quicker lead times (2 to 5 years) than conventional or nuclear plants (10 to 15 years),
decreasing the financial risk associated with borrowing millions of dollars to finance generators that take10 to 15 years before
they start producing a single kilowatt of electricity.
RPS Aff 98
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs


An RPS will revitalize the economy in several ways – creates five times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry

Lacey, 7 (Stephen, Renewable Energy World, “The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy,” 4-20-2007,
www.renewableenergyworld.net/rea/news/story?id=48201) // JMP

LaidLaw Energy Group, a New York-based developer of independent renewable power plants, has proposed turning the Fraser Paper Mill into a 50
megawatt (MW) capacity biomass electrical generation facility that will utilize woodchips. Because the mill's infrastructure is well suited for developing a
power plant, it will be easier and cheaper for the company to construct the facility.
If completed in 2008 as planned, the biomass facility will create approximately 500 indirect and 40 direct jobs in timber-rich Coos County where Berlin is
located. While a power plant will require much less labor than the old paper mill, 540 jobs are a welcome addition to the area.
"Clearly this project would help the local economy and many of the folks who have relied on the paper industry over the years," said Berlin City Manager
Patrick MacQueen. "This project will be great for job creation and actually maintaining the jobs that get built."
A University of New Hampshire study released this February titled, "Economic Impact of a New Hampshire Renewable Portfolio Standard,"
concluded that an adoption of 20 percent renewable energy will create thousands of jobs with wages much higher than the
current state average, generate over $1 million in state revenue, and provide a "newfound opportunity for NH residents to
start businesses."
Former New Hampshire Congressman Charlie Bass, who recently joined Laidlaw Energy Group as Special Advisor to company President and CEO Michael
Bartoszek, said that renewable energy projects like the Berlin biomass plant are important for economic growth and stability in the state.
"I've always been active in supporting alternative energy sources, so I'm excited to be involved with [the Berlin] project. Developments like this will truly
benefit the state of New Hampshire and the rest of our country," Bass said.
Additional studies released over the last decade have indicated that a large-scale transition by the U.S. into a clean energy
economy would significantly benefit the country by creating hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs, generate tens of billions
of dollars in federal and state tax revenues, and help revitalize struggling communities.
According to a 2004 meta-analysis from of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at the University of California, Berkeley, which
examined 13 studies on the economic benefits of renewable energy, approximately 240,000 jobs could be created and maintained if the country passed a 20
percent by 2020 RPS. If the U.S. relied solely on fossil fuels, the country would only maintain around 75,000 jobs.
"We found that you get three to five times the amount of jobs in the renewables area than you do in fossil fuels," said Dan
Kammen, director of RAEL and co-author of the meta-analysis. "The finding was not that there's some incredibly intrinsic, wonderful feature about
renewables, even though I might think there is. It was that these benefits go to the first victors."
That means local communities and states must act now in order to be part of the expected job growth.
The employment opportunities created by the renewable energy sector will be diverse -- ranging from indirect manufacturing and
construction jobs to direct facility design, operation and maintenance jobs. States like California, Texas, and others in the Midwest that have been most
aggressive in supporting the solar, wind and biofuel industries are going to see the largest growth in those employment areas noted Kammen.
For example, communities in the Midwestern Corn Belt are seeing a considerable economic boom because of the rapid growth of the biofuel industries. A
report released this February found that the ethanol industry created over 163,000 direct and indirect jobs, generated $4.9 billion in federal, state and local
taxes and reduced the federal trade deficit by $11.2 billion in 2006.
"The renewable fuels industry is creating economic activity, it's creating jobs, it's generating income, it's generating tax revenue and it's paying for itself,"
said John Urbanchuk, Director of LECG LLC and author of the ethanol report. "And since most of these plants are located in rural areas, they are a
significant impetus to rural economic development and economic growth."

Renewables generate more jobs than the fossil fuel industry – jobs will just shift to the new industry and help solve
unemployment

Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP

Overall, the renewable energy industry generates more jobs per MWa than the fossil fuelbased industries (mining, refining and utilities)
Our analysis in the previous section demonstrates that for a variety of feasible scenarios, the renewables industry consistently
generates more jobs per MWa in construction, manufacturing and installation, and in O&M and fuel processing, than the
fossil fuel industries.
Investment in renewables also generates more jobs per dollar invested than the fossil fuel energy sector. The REPP study6 calculates
that the solar PV industry generates 5.65 person-yrs of employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years) and the wind energy industry generates 5.7 person-yrs of
employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years). In contrast, every million dollars invested in the coal industry generates only 3.96 person-yrs of employment, over
the same time period.
Supporting the renewable energy industry will benefit sectors of the economy and states that currently suffer from high unemployment
The renewable energy industry creates comparatively more jobs in manufacturing than in services and O&M, which will provide a boost to US manufacturing. The results of our
model indicate that as
we build a clean energy future, jobs in the energy sector are likely to shift from mining and related services
to manufacturing, construction and agriculture (if biomass energy forms a large part of the renewables mix). This shift would benefit sectors of
the economy suffering from very high unemployment. As Table 4 demonstrates, while unemployment rates in manufacturing and mining are somewhat on
par, unemployment rates in construction and agriculture are currently extremely high.
RPS Aff 99
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – RPS Increases Manufacturing


A National RPS jumpstarts the U.S. materials and manufacturing sectors.

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)

A National RPS will jump-start U.S. materials and manufacturing sectors


American companies have enough materials for major expansions in wind energy.
American composite manufacturers say they can provide enough fiberglass at competitive prices in the next three years to
power 100,000 MW of new wind energy (nearly 6 percent of the country’s entire electricity supply).
Increased demand for wind components creates new American industries.
Increased demand for wind turbine materials and components will allow more than 16,000 companies (with over 1 million
employees) to enter the turbine manufacturing market.
A national RPS will improve manufacturing efficiency.
More domestic renewable energy manufacturing facilities will save utilities money by decreasing reliance on overseas
shipments of materials, which suffer from unfavorable exchange rates.

A national RPS will create over 100,000 net new high-paying jobs in America – manufacturing states will benefit

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK

E. Jobs, income, and other economic benefits


Investment in renewable energy can create high-paying jobs in the U.S. For example, direct jobs are created in manufacturing
renewable energy technologies, as well as in installing and operating them. Jobs are also created when renewable energy workers spend their
additional income on other goods and services and when consumer energy bill savings are spent in the economy.
Using UCS assumptions, we project that by 2020 the 20 percent RPS would generate more than 355,000 jobs in
manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other industries—nearly twice as many as fossil fuels, representing a net
increase of 157,480 jobs (Figure 4). Renewable energy would also provide an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in
gross domestic product in the U.S. economy in 2020.
A 10 percent national RPS would create significant, but fewer jobs. Under the 10 percent scenario using UCS assumptions, more than 190,000 jobs would be
created by 2020—a net increase of 91,220 jobs when compared with fossil fuels. In addition, $5.1 billion in income and $5.9 billion in gross domestic product would be pumped
into the U.S. economy in 2020.
Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs than fossil fuel technologies because they are more labor-intensive. A
large share of the expenditures for renewable energy is spent on manufacturing equipment, and installing and maintaining it. With biomass, money is also spent on fuel, but usually
from sources that are within 50 miles of a biomass plant, because it is too expensive to transport it for long distances. Therefore, renewable energy facilities avoid the need to
export cash to import fuel from other states, regions, or countries—keeping money circulating in the local economy, and creating more local jobs.
Many of the new jobs would be located in rural areas where the renewable energy generating facilities would be sited.
However, a national RPS can also benefit manufacturing states, even those with less abundant renewable resources, by providing them the opportunity
to manufacture and assemble components for renewable energy facilities. Developing a strong manufacturing base can also create enormous export
opportunities, given the rapidly growing commitment of the rest of the world to expand use of renewable energy.
A national RPS can help improve the U.S. economy in other ways. Renewable energy can greatly benefit struggling rural
economies, by providing new income for farmers, ranchers, and landowners from biomass energy production, wind power
lease payments, and local ownership. Property tax revenues from renewable energy facilities can also help local communities pay for schools and vital public
services. Table 3 compares the economic development benefits of the 20 percent by 2020 and 10 percent by 2020 national RPS scenarios analyzed using UCS assumptions.
By UCS estimates, the
difference in the number of jobs created compared to fossil fuels (157,480 net jobs created by a national
RPS) would generate an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product ($2002).105
RPS Aff 100
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs in Midwest / Rural Areas


An RPS will expand employment in the Midwest

Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP

It is not just states suffering from high unemployment in manufacturing that stand to benefit. The Midwest, for instance, is
particularly well suited for wind energy development, with the best wind power resources in the United States. According to
Greenpeace-USA, North Dakota alone has enough wind power to produce 1.2 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each
year9, which amounts to 32 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 2002. The Environmental Law and Policy Center
estimates that a renewable energy portfolio standard of 22 percent can generate 36,800 jobs by 2020 in the ten mid-western
states, of which over 52 percent will be in the wind energy industry.

Renewables will expand jobs and growth in inner-cities and rural communities

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

Expanding the use of renewable energy is not only good for our energy self-sufficiency and the environment; it also has a significant positive impact
on employment. My students and I have examined the observed job growth in a number of technology sectors (Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, 2004).
We reviewed 13 independent reports and studies that analyzed the economic and employment impacts of the clean energy industry in the United States and Europe. These studies
employ a wide range of methods, which adds credence to the findings. In addition to reviewing and comparing these studies, we have examined the assumptions used in each case,
and developed a job creation model which shows their implications for employment under several future energy scenarios.
A key result emerges from our work, and can be seen in Table 1. Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs than the fossil fuel-based
energy sector per unit of energy delivered (i.e., per average megawatt). In addition, we find that supporting renewables within a comprehensive and coordinated energy policy that
also supports energy efficiency and sustainable transportation will yield far greater employment benefits than supporting one or two of these sectors separately. Further,
generating local employment – including that in inner-cities, rural communities, and in areas in need of economic stimulus
-- through the deployment of local and sustainable energy technologies is an important and underutilized way to enhance
national security and international stability. Conversely, we find that the employment rate in fossil fuel-related industries has been declining steadily for
reasons that have little to do with environmental regulation.
The U. S. Government Accounting Office conducted its own study of the job creation potential of a clean energy economy (GAO, 2004). In an important assessment of rural
employment and income opportunities, they found that:
… a farmer who leases land for a wind project can expect to receive $2,000 to $5,000 per turbine per year in lease payments. In addition, large wind power projects in some of the
nation’s poorest rural counties have added much needed tax revenues and employment opportunities.

Clean technologies will spur a new wave of job growth that is inclusive of diverse socioeconomic groups

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

In this testimony I highlight the key finding that while a continuation of business as usual energy choices will result in
socially, politically, and environmentally costly and destructive climate change, the motivation to invest in solutions to
climate change can be simply that a green economy can also be exceedingly vibrant. In fact, an economy built around a suite
of lowcarbon technologies can be resistant to price shocks as well as secure against supply disruptions as well as inclusive of
diverse socioeconomic groups. A new wave of job growth – both ‘high technology’ and ones that transform ‘blue collar labor’
into ‘green collar’ opportunities. The combination of economic competitiveness and environmental protection is a clear result
from a systematic approach to investing in climate solutions.
Clean energy systems and energy efficiency investments also contribute directly to energy security and to domestic job
growth versus off-shore migration. Renewable energy systems are more often local than imported due to the weight of
biomass resources and the need for operations and maintenance.
RPS Aff 101
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – RPS Will Boost Competitiveness


RPS is key to boost U.S. competitiveness

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
Conclusion
Now is the Time for Federal RPS
It is time that federal policymakers engage in an informed, comprehensive and rational debate about the few remaining objections to a federal RPS mandate. America faces
serious and mounting energy problems:
- continued dependence on dwindling foreign sources of fossil fuels and uranium
- an undiversified electricity fuel mixture that leaves the nation vulnerable to serious national security threats
- reliance on an ancient and overwhelmed transmission grid that risks more common, more pronounced, and more expensive catastrophic system failures
- an impending climate crisis that will require massive and expensive emissions controls costing billions of dollars and substantially reducing U.S. GDP
- loss of American economic competitiveness as Europe and Japan become the major manufacturing center for new clean
energy technologies
It is time to decide. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can create a more just
and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology
sector. By offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American
consumers while protecting human health and the environment.
There is a time for accepting the quirks and foibles of state experimentation in national energy policy; and there is a time to look to the states as laboratories for policy innovation.
Now is the time to model the best state RPS programs and craft a coherent national policy that protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers.
Now is the time for federal leadership. // pg. 13

Federal RPS would push the renewable industry in a world leadership position.

Haynes, 4 - Policy Analyst, N.C. Solar Center, N.C. State University (Rusty, “Systematic Support for Renewable Energy in
the United States and Beyond: A Selection of Policy Options and Recommendations,” 2004,
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Haynes_KIER_Keynote.pdf, AG)

Government programs implemented by Germany and Japan during the 1990s have proven that committed, long-term (but
adaptable) federal policies can catapult a country’s industry into a world leadership position within a decade. Given the
tremendous success of these policies, federal governments in a position to support renewable energy should also seriously
consider adopting programs modeled on Germany’s and Japan’s. When designing a financial incentive or regulatory policy to
promote renewable energy, it is usually advisable for governments, when possible, to involve all stakeholders who will be
affected.

20% RPS would significantly boost economic competitiveness.

Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp)

Reality: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently completed a study, Renewing Where We Live, which shows that
the U.S. has more than sufficient potential to produce 20% of our electricity from renewable sources. Adopting a 20%
standard will put the U.S. on track to be competitive with other countries-many of which have poorer resources and less land
area-that have adopted similar or more aggressive standards. The United Kingdom plans to increase renewable energy from
2.8% of electricity use today to 10% by 2010, and a recent government report proposed increasing to 20% renewable energy
by 2020.2 Denmark and Finland are planning for 30% renewable energy by 2010. The European Union goal is 22% by 2010.
Regions in Denmark, Spain, and Germany already get nearly 20% of their electricity just from wind turbines.(3)
RPS Aff 102
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – RPS = Export Capabilities


A RPS will create a predictable and broad market for renewable energy in the U.S. – allowing businesses to
participate in the global renewable energy market

Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and
Resources Group
(Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP

4) A federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to help build renewable energy markets
The RPS is a renewable energy content standard, akin to efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances that have proven successful in the past. A
gradually increasing RPS provides the most economically efficient way of ensuring that a growing proportion of electricity
sales are provided by renewable energy, and is designed to integrate renewables into the marketplace in the most cost-effective fashion. In this
manner, the market picks the winning and losing technologies and projects, not administrators. With all the discussion and hype about
market forces, a RPS provides the one true means to use market forces most effectively. I recommend a renewable energy component of 2 percent in 2002,
growing to 10 percent in 2010 and 20 percent by 2020 that would include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, and landfill gas. A number of studies indicate
that this 20% in 2020 level of an RPS is broadly good for business and can readily be achieved 24,25 . This standard is similar to the one proposed by
Senators Jeffords and Lieberman in the 106th congress (S. 1369). This bill has not been reintroduced nor has any other RPS legislation been introduced in
this Congress yet. States that decide to pursue more aggressive goals - many of which make economic and environmental sense - could be rewarded through
an additional federal incentive program. To achieve compliance a federal RPS should use market dynamics to stimulate innovation
through an active trading program of renewable energy credits.
Renewable credit trading is analogous to the sulfur allowance trading system established in the Clean Air Act. Like emissions trading, it is designed to be
administratively simple and to increase flexibility and decrease the cost of compliance with the standard. Electricity suppliers can generate renewable
electricity themselves, purchase renewable electricity and credits from generators, or buy credits in a secondary trading market.
The coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power industries are mature; yet continue to receive considerable government subsidies. Moreover, the market price of
fossil and nuclear energy does not include the cost of the damage they cause to the environment and human health. Conversely, the market does not give a
value to the environmental and social benefits of renewables. Without the RPS or a similar mechanism, many renewables will not be able
to compete in an increasingly competitive electricity market focused on producing power at the lowest direct cost. The RPS is
designed to deliver renewables that are most ready for the market. Additional policies are still needed to support emerging renewable technologies, like
photovoltaics, that have enormous potential to eventually become commercially competitive through targeted investment incentives. Smart investors
typically acquire a portfolio of stocks and bonds to reduce risk. Including renewables in America's power supply portfolio would do the same by protecting
consumers from fossil fuel price shocks and supply shortages. A properly designed RPS will also establish a viable market for the long-
term development of America's renewable energy industries, creating jobs at home and export opportunities abroad.
The RPS is the surest market based approach for securing the public benefits of renewables while supplying the greatest amount of
clean power for the lowest price. It creates an ongoing incentive to drive down costs by providing a dependable and predictable
market, which has been lacking in this country. The RPS will reduce renewable energy costs by:
- Providing a revenue stream that will enable manufacturers and developers to obtain reasonable cost financing and make investments in expanding capacity
to meet an expanding renewable energy market.
- Allowing economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy facilities.
- Promoting vigorous competition among renewable energy developers and technologies to meet the standard at the lowest cost.
- Inducing development of renewables in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective, while avoiding expensive long-distance
transmission, by allowing national renewable energy credit trading.
- Reducing transaction costs, by enabling suppliers to buy credits and avoid having to negotiate many small contracts with individual renewable energy
projects.
Analysis by several groups of the effects of ramping up to the 20 percent RPS target in 2020 would result in renewable
energy development in every region of the country with most coming from wind, biomass, and geothermal sources. In
particular, the Plains, Western, and Mid-Atlantic States would generate more than 20 percent of their electricity as shown in Figure 6. Electricity prices are
projected to fall 13 percent between 1997 and 2020 under this RPS (see Figure 7) .
This increase in renewable energy usage would also reduce some of the projected rise in natural gas prices for all gas consumers, providing an added savings
for households who heat with gas. Texas has been a leader in developing and implementing a successful RPS that then Governor Bush signed into law in
1999. The Texas law requires electricity companies to supply 2,000 MW of new renewable resources by 2009. The state may meet this goal by the end of
2002, seven years early. The RPS has also been signed into law in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Minnesota and Iowa also have minimum renewables requirements similar to an RPS. Bills with the RPS are also
pending in several states. Variations in the details of these programs have kept them from being overly successful. A clear and
properly constructed federal standard would correct these problems, and set a clear target for industry research, development,
and market growth 27 .
RPS Aff 103
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Increased Renewables Key to Exports Markets


The U.S. must boost renewable energy production to create export markets – we are currently losing out to Germany
and Japan

Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University
(Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if
America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP
Renewable Europe
Compare this to the European Union, which requires 12 percent renewable electricity production by 2010, in addition to standards in
place in all 25 countries. Germany's standard sets a goal of 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The German Electricity Feed Law requires that most utilities pay 90
percent of the retail residential price for electricity produced from renewable sources. And the government provides subsidies for wind production based on
electricity output or capital costs.
German national banks offer loans at 1 percent to 2 percent below market for the first 70 percent of project costs for renewable production initiatives. These programs were fine-tuned in the early 1990s because
Germany has been the world's largest producer of wind
concentration of wind energy in the northern part of the country (with higher winds) overburdened utilities there.
energy in the world since 1997, producing three times the wind energy as the United States with less wind capacity than North
Dakota alone.
It's the same story in solar. Germany and Japan's solar “feed-in” initiatives require utility grids to buy excess solar power from
individual producers. The two countries now have a 70 percent share of global production and are industry leaders in solar
electricity equipment. Japan produces about 45 percent of global solar PV production, the EU 24 percent, and the United States only 21 percent (2003 figures). The Joint Global Change Research
Institute reports that from a base of a few thousand jobs in the early 1990s, German employment in renewable energy jumped to 50,000 in 1998 and then more than doubled to its current level of about 120,000.
Germany will have to move into export markets to maintain, let alone expand, employment. It's not that the United States has no production incentive policies in place. The problem is that no single program is
. the United States is way behind in renewable energy
funded at a level to have the kind of impact needed to dramatically increase production, and thus employment So,
production. If we want to create export markets for production equipment, we will need to develop capacity quickly. Kammen notes
that only one of the world's top ten solar PV module producers is a U.S. company.

Creating a strong domestic demand for renewable allows the industry to develop an export market

Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP

Our model also does not include jobs that may be generated if the US develops a renewable energy industry for export. The study by the Research and Policy Center of
Environment California8 shows that for
California alone, a renewable energy industry servicing the export market can generate up to 16
times more employment than an industry that only manufactures for domestic consumption (see Table 5). Of course, manufacturing
for export means producing at an internationally competitive cost, which can be achieved all the easier if the domestic
market creates sufficient demand to bring renewables rapidly down the cost curve.

US incentives will expand renewable domestically and create export opportunities

Shugar and Suarez 5 – *President of the PowerLights Corporation ** Senior NewsHour correspondant – [Dan Shugar and
Ray Suarez, NewsHour, “Widening the Trade Gap,” 4-12-05, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june05/trade_4-
12.html]

DAN SHUGAR (President of PowerLights Corporation): Yeah, Ray, I agree that there
are a lot of things that we could do to really help drive both
exports as well as drive a manufacturing base here in North America. For example, on the clean energy side of things, in Europe and in Asia,
especially Japan, there are incentives for manufacturers to be able to increase their manufacturing capacity, create more local jobs to serve
those local markets. One of the reasons we looked abroad to export our technologies is that we had, you know, continued to grow
to a point where we were, together with our local company, saturating the North American market. What we've seen in Japan and Europe
is that they've made incentives available to help alternative energy companies like solar power technology companies, build
capacity there to serve the local market. So it would be very productive, I believe, to put smart incentives in place as well as
energy policies that promote renewable power so we can manufacture our own power solutions right here with American jobs
and put them en route, both to solidify the domestic market and help us with export opportunities.
RAY SUAREZ: Terrence Straub mentioned that that deficit is being run, not just with China, which is a quarter of the entire number, but with every industrialized country in the
world. Is it making those countries richer and better customers for you?
DAN SHUGAR(President of PowerLights Corporation): Well, I feel that these
countries are doing what they need to do to meet their energy needs
and both by improving the efficiency as well as importing a lot of renewable energy and solar power technologies. I feel that
we're missing a great opportunity here to use American ingenuity, know-how to harvest our technology and know-how to
create our energy solutions right here at home.
RPS Aff 104
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Solar Key to Tech Leadership


Solar power is key to America’s technological leadership

"What's so exciting about solar energy is that it creates an elegant solution to three of the largest challenges that ... face our
country today," says Giffords. The first, she says, is US dependence on foreign energy. The second is global warming, and the
third is advances in technology.
Those advances in technology, she argues, could help America lead the world in this field.
"I'm very concerned that America is falling behind. Pursuing solar energy, cleaner-burning energy, renewable energy can
absolutely lead to economic prosperity," says Gifford.
[Note – Gabrielle Giffords (D) is a US Rep. from Arizona]

U.S. must expand solar PV production to catch up to Japan and Europe

Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP

It is also worth noting that there are energy companies based today largely on fossil-fuels which are well prepared to make a
substantial shift in their energy business. Both British Petroleum (BP) and Shell, for instance, own two of the world’s three
largest solar energy companies. In 2002, BP Solar supplied 14 percent of global PV shipments, and Shell Solar 10 percent.
The United States has a lot of catching up to do. For instance, in 2003, total US production of solar PV modules amounted to
121 MWp (21 percent of global solar PV production). This was less than half of Japan’s 251 MWp (45 percent of global
production) and also less than Europe’s 135 MWp (24 percent of global production) that same year16. Of the top ten solar PV
module producers in 2002, only one was an American company (Astropower), although some of the others manufacture (and
thus generate jobs) in the United States (for example, BP Solar and Shell Solar both have manufacturing plants in the US).

The U.S. market share for solar power is slipping

Friedman, 8 (Thomas L., NYT, “Dumb as We Wanna Be,” 4-30-2008,


www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s
premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540
high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.
In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last
year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”
RPS Aff 105
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – RPS Key to Create Demand For RE


A federal RPS will create a demand for renewable energy and stimulate technologies, products and jobs

Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University
(Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if
America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP

The missing feds


What's needed, of course, is a federal renewable portfolio standard and a huge increase of public funds. A standard of 20
percent by 2020 based on wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas would create extensive new demand for
renewable energy and stimulate new technologies, products, and jobs.
If ever passed, the Clean EDGE Act introduced in Congress in May 2006 would require half of new vehicles be gas-ethanol
capable by 2020 and that 10 percent of the nation's electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2020. Further, it
requires reducing national petroleum consumption by 40 percent by 2020. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the
associated $49 billion investment to achieve these goals would create about 530,000 jobs. Most of these would be
manufacturing jobs, about half in wind energy.
The Apollo Alliance advocates a $300 billion federal investment over 10 years in energy conservation and renewable energy
to create 459,000 jobs in renewable energy and 3.3 million in all related jobs. Instead, Daniel Kammen at the University of
California, Berkeley, reports in Scientific American that all U.S. energy research-and-development spending declined from its
peak of 10 percent in 1980 to 2 percent by 2005. “Annual public R&D funding for energy sank from $8 to $3 billion (in 2002
dollars); private R&D plummeted from $4 billion to $1 billion.” This compares to public R&D spending of $70 billion for
military purposes, $11 billion for the space program, and $2 billion for agricultural purposes.
The federal government does provide production tax credits and ethanol tax credits, and funding for some research into
renewable energy. But the tax credits have been offered inconsistently, and haven't created the secure environment needed to
spur private investment in research and innovation.

The U.S. must create a guarantee a demand for renewable to spur their domestic development and enhance U.S.
competitiveness

Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University
(Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if
America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP

States of green
Twenty-three states now have energy portfolio standards. Seventeen states and 61 municipalities have legislation requiring
that buildings funded at a given level from capital budgets and/or over a certain square footage meet LEED or other green
building standards. These policies drive demand and bring down the unit cost of production.
Manufacturing the inputs to green buildings could help revive the economies of many states that have lost manufacturing
employment, particularly if companies establish an export market. But producers have to know that demand is shifting to
green products before they'll commit investments. If building products manufacturers are making such advanced products as
fiber-optic day-lighting, pollution-removing systems, and goods made from pre- and post-consumer recycled content, the
United States could actually lose jobs as contractors look to European and Asian suppliers, which are way ahead of America.
RPS Aff 106
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership


The failure to compete in the renewable market will cripple U.S. economic and technological leadership

Hendricks, 4 – Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance


(Bracken, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on House
Resources, “Rising Price of Natural Gas,” 2-12-2004, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP

A New Apollo Project: A Bold Challenge for America's Future


Americans have always pulled together in tough times. Using ingenuity, hard work, and can-do spirit, we created the strongest industrial base the world had ever seen during and
after War World II. In the sixties, we rose to President Kennedy's challenge and achieved a goal that seemed beyond our reach: We put a man on the moon in less than a decade. It's
time to roll up our shirt sleeves again.
Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And America's future prospects will depend upon the secure supply of
affordable and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. But growing dependence on foreign oil, unprecedented
energy failures, and mounting evidence of environmental crises are clear warning signs that America's current policies cannot be sustained. It is time for a bold
initiative - with the vision and the scope of the original Apollo program - to end America's dependence on foreign oil and
create millions of good jobs building the sustainable energy system of the next century.
While the Apollo project is about changing our future, it is built on an honest assessment of our past and the recognition that public leadership and meaningful public investment
have historically been essential for economic development and promoting new technology. In the past, government investment in the railroads, in the national highway system, in
the space program, in the research and development of the micro chip and other technologies elevated our economy and quality of life to new levels. We cannot sit on the sidelines
now if America is to move forward. The American economy will not grow its way out of problems thirty years in the making without real political leadership.
Too often we are told to think small, that we have to choose between good jobs and environmental quality. This is a false choice and we can do better. Working families should not
have to decide whether to put food on the table for our children today or protect the health and economic security of our children tomorrow. We must do both. Ensuring
a
diverse, efficient, and clean energy supply is essential for preserving good jobs, protecting our environment, and sustaining
American global economic and technological leadership.

Ultimately, the renewable market is key to U.S. economic and technological leadership

Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and
Resources Group
(Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP

As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of
which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar
photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany,
and Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our
international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs.
Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth
internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer
and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U.S. strategic leadership.
The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this
vital area.

The plan will make the U.S. the international technological leader

Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP

Transitioning from a fossil fuel–based economy to a renewably powered one will spur economic growth and provide
considerable employment. A review of 13 studies and our own analysis concur with this conclusion. The national and
international security implications of spurring employment through local, sustainable energy generation are compelling. The
United States needs to regain its international position as a technology leader, and the technologies of the future are in clean
energy. The time is ripe to move beyond studies to action.
RPS Aff 107
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership


Expanding renewable energy is key to U.S. international competitiveness

Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP

RENEWABLE energy systems--notably solar, wind, and biomass--are poised to play a major role in the energy economy and in improving the
environmental quality of the United States. California's energy crisis focused attention on and raised fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Prior to
the crisis in California, there had been too little attention given to appropriate power plant siting issues and to bottlenecks in transmission and distribution. A strong national energy
policy is now needed. Renewable technologies have become both economically viable and environmentally preferable alternatives to fossil fuels. Last year the United States spent
more than $600 billion on energy, with U.S. oil imports climbing to $120 billion, or nearly $440 of imported oil for every American. In the long term, even a natural gas-based
strategy will not be adequate to prevent a buildup of unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) in the atmosphere. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli mate
Change's (IPCC) recent Third Assessment Report and the National Academy of Sciences' recent analysis of climate change science concluded that climate change is real and must
be addressed immediately--and that U.S. policy needs to be directed toward implementing clean energy solutions. (1)
Renewable energy technologies have made important and dramatic technical, economic, and operational advances during the
past decade. A national energy policy and climate change strategy should be formulated around these advances. Despite dramatic technical and economic advances in clean
energy systems, the United States has seen far too little research and development (R&D) and too few incentives and sustained programs to build markets for renewable energy
technologies and energy efficiency programs. (2) Not since the late 1970s has there been a more compelling and conducive environment for an integrated, large-scale approach to
renewable energy innovation and market expansion. (3) Clean, low-carbon energy choices now make both economic and environmental sense, and they provide the domestic basis
for our energy supply that will provide security, not dependence on unpredictable overseas fossil fuels.
Energy issues in the United States have created "quick fix" solutions that, while politically expedient, will ultimately do the country more harm than good. It is critical to examine
all energy options, and never before have so many technological solutions been available to address energy needs. In the near term, some expansion of the nation's fossil fuel
(particularly natural gas) supply is warranted to keep pace with rising demand, but that expansion should be balanced with measures to develop cleaner energy solutions for the
future. The best short-term options for the United States are energy efficiency, conservation, and expanded markets for renewable energy.
For many years, renewables were seen as energy options that--while environmentally and socially attractive--occupied niche markets at best, due to barriers of cost and available
infrastructure. In the last decade, however, the case for renewable energy has become economically compelling as well. There has been a true revolution in technological
innovation, cost improvements, and our understanding and analysis of appropriate applications of renewable energy resources and technologies--notably solar, wind, small-scale
hydro, and biomass-based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells. (4) There are now a number of energy sources, conversion technologies, and
applications that make renewable energy options either equal or better in price and services provided than the prevailing fossil fuel technologies. For example, in
a growing
number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least expensive option among all energy technologies--
with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some farmers, notably in the U.S. Midwest, have found that they can generate more income
per hectare from the electricity generated by a wind turbine than from their crop or ranching proceeds. (5) Also, photovoltaic (solar) panels and solar hot water heaters placed on
buildings across the United States can help reduce energy costs, dramatically shave peak-power demands, produce a healthier living environment, and increase the overall energy
supply.
The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which
are related to the energy sector. (6) The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems, behind Denmark in wind and
cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems. Developing these industries within the United
States is vital to the country's international competitiveness, commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy
needs.
RPS Aff 108
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact


U.S. competitiveness is key to hegemony; a loss of our edge will cause isolationism

Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation


(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)

The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In
such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States
would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external
interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength,
the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes.
In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively
affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not.
Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and
the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its
relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced
by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and
by generating and using superior science and technology. In the long run the economic future of the United States will also be
affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society
the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and taxation
accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall
rate of investment. Although their government cannot endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use
tax policy to raise the savings rate.

This causes several scenarios for nuclear war

Ferguson, 4 – History Professor, Harvard


(Niall, A World Without Power, Foreign Policy)

The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even
depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it
would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile,
as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-
Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist
system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose
out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark
Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to
Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom
of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making
their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula
and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek
solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would
continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these
continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an
apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States
retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home
and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old
balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be
apolarity--a global vacuum of power.
RPS Aff 109
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – RE has Huge Market Potential


Renewable energy has enormous market and profit potential

Hodge, 7 (Nick, “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007,
www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP

According to David Abel, Chairman of VerdiXchange and host of the conference, "We need to shift how we connect the
green dots. The solutions are in the marketplace, we just need to scale them up."
That's exactly what Yaniv Tepper of the Angeleno Group, a California-based private equity firm with over $200 million tied
up in clean-tech companies, thinks is going to happen. His firm, which used to never even look at renewable energy
companies, now believes there is windfall profit potential due to:
High oil and gas prices
Aging electric infrastructure
Increased environmental restrictions and corporate mandates, and
A push toward energy independence
A litany of others in the venture capital and private equity world feel the same way. One after another they paraded to the
podium using phrases like "high growth rates", "increased initial public offerings (IPOs) and mergers and acquisitions" and,
my favorite, "We finally figured out how to make money off this stuff."
If there were any remaining doubt about the financial viability or profit potential of the kind of companies Green Chip
recommends, it should all now be abated. These are, after all, the same men who made fortunes in oil and gas companies and
the dot-com boom of the 1990s.
And I couldn't get any greater pleasure than when I saw lists of some of the companies these fund managers are investing in
pop up on their PowerPoint slides. Many were companies we've already recommended to our Green Chip Stocks subscribers.
Companies like Ormat Technologies Inc. (NYSE: ORA), which has climbed well over 225% since late 2004, and which
we've been in since early 2005. Take a look at a chart for Ormat Technologies:
And there others that are still too nascent to mention here, but that I imagine will have similar charts in a similar timespan. So
unless you have millions of dollars in disposable income that you are willing to invest in endowment funds, hedge funds,
public-private partnerships or venture capital start-ups, I suggest you consider joining Green Chip Stocks.
Because, let's face it, national renewable portfolio standard or not, there is money being made hand over fist. And not just
here in the States, but around the globe as well. In fact, British Energy Secretary John Hutton said this week that England
could be entirely powered by offshore wind turbines by 2020.
If you don't want to miss another minute of this action, click here.

Renewable energy has big time market potential – it could become a world leading industry with active U.S. support

Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP

The push to develop renewable and other clean energy technologies is no longer being driven solely by environmental
concerns; these technologies are becoming economically competitive. According to Merrill Lynch's Robin Batchelor, the
traditional energy sector has lacked appeal to investors in recent years because of heavy regulation, low growth, and a
tendency to be cyclical. (10) The United States' lack of support for innovative new companies sends a signal that U.S. energy
markets are biased against new entrants. The clean energy industry could, however, become a world-leading industry akin to
that of U.S. semi-conductors and computer systems.
RPS Aff 110
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – U.S. Falling Behind / Small Threshold for Adv


The U.S. is falling behind on renewable energy technology—national policy is key to solve.

Obama in 8— Senator of Illinois and Presidential Candidate (Barack, “Obama: McCain Has Failed Us On Energy ‘For
Decades’”, 6-24-08, Talking Points Memo Election Central,
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_mccain_has_failed_us_on.php)

It isn't because the resources and technology aren't there. We know this because countries like Spain, Germany, and Japan
have already leapt ahead of us when it comes to renewable energy technology. Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific
Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight
years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they
did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and
Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary
investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that.
What Washington has done is what Washington always does - it's peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap
gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won't lead America toward the next generation of
renewable energy. And now we're paying the price. Now we've fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we're forced to beg
Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we're facing gas prices over $4 a gallon - gas prices that are decimating the savings of
families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn't even
afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That's how badly folks are hurting. That's how badly Washington has
failed.

Other countries are developing clean technologies and expanding their export opportunities

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

A growing number of state, regional, and national economies are assuming leadership positions for a clean, low carbon,
energy economy. These ‘early actors’ are reaping the economic benefits of their actions. Among the global leaders are Brazil,
Denmark, Iceland Germany, Japan, Spain, all of which have made significant commitments to a green economy, and all are
seeing job growth and rapidly expanding export opportunities. In the United States several states have embarked on
significant climate protection efforts, and half of U. S. states have taken the vital step of adopting minimum levels of
renewable energy requirements.

The threshold for the advantage is super small

Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Any Given Wednesday: Green Jobs on the Hill,” 2-5-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP

“Competitiveness is a game of inches,” Daniel Seligman says, echoing Al Pacino. The Washington director for the Apollo
Alliance, a clean-energy lobby, says the U.S. can’t risk losing ground to foreign countries with vibrant alternative-energy
sectors.
Renewing renewable tax credits—even just for a year—is one small step on that transformation, argue some proponents. And
they say it fits perfectly well into the stimulus package.
“Opposition [to the credits] is symbolic of old thinking, that this isn’t a core issue to the economy,” says Bracken Hendricks,
a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank. “But greening the economy is core
economic strategy,” he says.
RPS Aff 111
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – A2: Renewables Manufactured Abroad


Imported renewable must be paid for from export proceeds

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton


(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.
J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

n41. Absent special circumstances, the Worldwatch Institute has little reason to be alarmed over a drop in the U.S. share of
world solar collector production from 44% in 1996 to below 9% in 2005. The U.S. can only import renewables if it pays for
them with the proceeds from exports or foreign investments. Worldwatch Inst. and Ctr. for Am. Progress, supra note 4, at 11.

A national RPS will boost the domestic steel and manufacturing sectors

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

7. Industry: A National RPS Supports a Domestic Materials and Manufacturing Sector


A. Wind Turbines
Three primary components constitute the bulk of a wind turbine’s cost and weight: fiberglass for its blades, and steel and
cement for its tower. Industry projections for each of these components look exceptionally positive, suggesting lower prices
for future projects.
Around 81 percent of wind turbines currently in operation utilize fiberglass blades (the first models tended to use wood epoxy). Fiberglass blades are the only wind turbine
component designed and manufactured uniquely for wind energy applications. The U.S. composites and reinforced plastics industry shipped a record volume of 4.5 billion pounds
of finished composites products to domestic customers in 2006. To put this figure in perspective, while U.S. consumption of steel has doubled since 1960 and use of aluminum has
almost quadrupled, composites shipments have multiplied 18 fold—and industry representatives says they could easily expand much more. The American Composites
Manufacturing Association (ACMA) projects that composite manufacturers would be able to provide enough fiberglass at competitive prices in the next three years to power
100,000 MW of wind energy (or 6 percent of the country’s entire electricity supply).333
The availability of steel and concrete looks just as positive. The global steel industry outperformed all other basic-material
sectors in 2006, achieving a total shareholder return of 37 percent. Such sustained profits are helping to stabilize steel prices and is encouraging significant investment in the
industry, which is expected to grow 4 percent every year reaching a production level of 1.7 billion tons by 2015.334 Industry consolidation, as well as growing demand in
India and China, has made producers much more “cost efficient and sensitive to changes in global consumption patterns.”335
The global concrete industry—an $8.6 billion industry in the United States—continues to operate in an environment of similar guaranteed profits, as at least one segment of the
construction industry is always in demand for their products.336 Cement companies have announced plans to invest more than $3.6 billion dollars to expand domestic capacity
totaling more than 11 million tons between now and 2010—enough to keep prices low even with the added demand of wind turbine installations.337
The DOE projects the costs for all other components of wind turbines to remain stable or even decline, especially as greater
bulk purchases drive costs down.338
One DOE report noted that “low cost of materials and reliability” will continue to be the “primary drivers” fueling expansion of wind energy.339
Costs will continue to decline as developers diversify some of the materials used to make wind turbines. New manufacturing techniques, such as resin infusion and vacuum
bagging, as well as material innovations (such as carbon and glass epoxies, improved resin systems, and better exploitation of traditional fiberglass reinforcement with engineered
fabrics) have enabled turbine manufacturers to optimize weight in modern turbine designs.340 The next generation of turbines will have longer, thinner, and more durable
blades.341
In 2004, the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) found that demand
for wind turbine materials and components would allow more than
16,000 companies (with approximately 1 million employees) to enter the turbine manufacturing market.
The REPP report concluded that sustained demand for wind turbine materials and components would encourage these sectors to invest
more around $50 billion in 50,000 MW of wind capacity should demand for wind turbines required it. 343 // pg. 130-132
RPS Aff 112
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [1/2]


Climate change will devastate agriculture in China and India – China will model U.S. action

Economist, 8 (“China, India and climate change; Melting Asia,” 6-5-2008,


www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11488548) // JMP

China and India are increasingly keen to be seen to be tackling climate change; though it is dirtier, China is making a more convincing show of action
SINCE 2006 the railway line across the Tibetan plateau (above) has been carrying passengers and freight across a landscape of snow-covered peaks and tundra, antelopes and
wolves. China celebrates it as one of the nation's greatest technological feats. But some experts worry that global warming may render it useless.
The impact of warming can be seen on a road that runs parallel to the line for much of its length. Trucks bump along its cracked and undulating surface, which is being ravaged by
the freezing and thawing of the tundra beneath. Since the highway was built in the 1950s, the permafrost area has been shrinking and the layer above it, which is subject to seasonal
thaw, has been getting deeper. The railway is vulnerable to the same process.
The vast and sparsely populated Tibetan plateau is the origin of the great river systems of China, South-East and South Asia: the Yangzi and Yellow Rivers, the Brahmaputra, the
Indus, the Mekong and the Salween. The Ganges rises on the Indian side of the plateau's Himalayan rim. These rivers, fed by thousands of Himalayan glaciers, are an ecological
miracle. They support some 1.3 billion people.
But the
glaciers are retreating. Chinese experts predict that by 2050 the icy area on their side of the Himalayas will have
shrunk by more than a quarter since 1950. Predictions for the Indian side are gloomier still. In April a leading Indian glaciologist, Professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain,
measured the East Rathong glacier in lofty Sikkim state. It appeared to have shrunk by 2.5km, or half its length, in a decade.
The average global temperature increase of 0.6°C in a century seems an insufficient explanation; but that may combine with a 3km-thick fug of pollution, known as Asian Brown
Cloud, that hangs over northern India. Scientists think this haze, which is created by power stations and cooking-fires, may be radiating heat into the lower troposphere, at altitudes
in which glaciers are found. Mr Hasnain estimates that Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 20-30 years. That would leave many great rivers depending on seasonal rainfall.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this may be the fate of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra by 2035. Making matters worse, changes to the
weather may meanwhile make the rains less reliable.
North India has two main weather systems. In the summer, south-westerly monsoonal winds reach northern India, in an explosion of heat-busting rain, in late June. During the
winter, westerly winds blow rain-clouds across Pakistan and northern India, watering the plains and dumping snow onto the tops of the Hindu Kush, Karakorams and western
Himalayas.
These systems are liable to change with the climate; some scientists think the Westerlies have been disrupted already. This might explain why India's winter rains were poor this
year; but May delivered a drenching. With 168mm of rainfall, Delhi had its wettest May on record. In Uttar Pradesh state, two storms killed 120 people. With
seasonal
rivers and sporadic rains, India's ecological miracle would become an ecological calamity.
Now that the American presidential race is down to two candidates who are both committed to cutting emissions, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are
seen by many as the world's biggest climate-change problems. Russia's economy is more profligate with energy, but China is widely believed to be the world's biggest emitter of
carbon dioxide, and India is rapidly moving up. Their exploding emissions are America's main excuse for failing to take action itself; and their intransigence exasperates those
trying to negotiate a global agreement on climate-change mitigation to replace the Kyoto protocol. Meanwhile, both countries are
awakening to the problems that
climate change will cause them.
In the past couple of years, Chinese officials have begun sounding like converts to the climate-change cause. In late 2006 12 ministries helped
produce a 415-page report on the impact of global warming. It foresees a 5-10% reduction in agricultural output by 2030 (a shift from previous
thinking on this among Chinese academics which held that global warming might benefit agriculture overall); more droughts, floods, typhoons and
sandstorms; a 40% increase in the population threatened by plague. The report also admits the possibility of damage to the Tibetan railway. Last year
China published its first policy document on climate change, admitting that coping with global warming presented “severe challenges”.
China also now admits its own contribution to the problem. Officials reacted frostily last year when the International Energy Agency, a rich-country think-tank, said China would
overtake America as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2007 or 2008. But the Chinese commerce ministry's website now carries, without negative comment, an
article from April this year quoting University of California researchers saying China is already number one.
The impact of climate change on India, a hotter and poorer country, is likely to be worse. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
India's agriculture will suffer more than any other country's. Assuming a global temperature increase of 4.4°C over cultivated areas by 2080, India's
agricultural output is projected to fall by 30-40%.
Yet India's response to this doomful scenario has been, at best, haphazard. For example, it has made only occasional studies of 11 Himalayan glaciers. It has also
shown little concern for the regional political crisis that climate change threatens. As sea-levels rise, for example, the IPCC warns that 35m refugees could flee Bangladesh's
flooded delta by 2050. Yet even in India, attitudes are changing.
Manmohan Singh, its sagacious prime minister, has formed a powerful council of ministers, bureaucrats, scientists and businessmen to co-operate on the issue. It has rarely met;
yet it is part of a broader push that has sparked a flurry of climate-related initiatives: to boost energy efficiency, improve seed types, encourage forestation and so on. Given India's
historic problems with flooding and drought, many of these are built upon existing policies. Indeed, the government claims that 2% of GDP is being spent on coping with climate-
induced problems. To display these efforts, and manage them better, India is due this month to unveil a vaunted policy, the National Action Plan on Climate Change.
It will be welcome; because many consider that India is expending even greater effort on justifying its refusal to control its emissions. In particular it argues that its total emissions
are relatively low (see chart above) and that it is relatively energy-efficient (see chart below). China uses far more energy than it does per unit of GDP; Russia, vastly more.
The reasons for India's frugality are not all that creditable. Almost half the population has no access to electricity. Also, India cross-subsidises power and petroleum products:
farmers get cheap electricity, for instance, while industry pays more for it. This is one of many government-imposed hardships that have forced Indian firms to use power and other
resources efficiently. As a result, India is one of the world's lowest-cost producers of aluminium and steel.
During the past four years both China's GDP and its energy consumption have grown at an average of 11% a year. India's GDP, meanwhile, has grown at an annual average of 9%
while its energy consumption has risen by 4%. And yet, to
achieve its target of long-term 8% growth, India will have to boost its power-
generation capacity at least sixfold by 2030. Over the period, its emissions are expected to increase over fourfold.
India defends this on moral grounds: its people have the same right to wealth as anyone. Indeed, given their special vulnerability to climate problems, they have a particularly
urgent need for economic development. After all, a factory worker with an air-conditioner will feel global warming less than a subsistence farmer will.
This position is also consistent with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which launched the Kyoto process, and recognised that economic development and
poverty eradication were the “overriding priorities” for developing countries. The Bush administration's bid to override this principle by refusing to undertake targeted emissions
cuts unless India and China accept comparable cuts has therefore caused fury in India. A senior official in the foreign ministry characterises America's line as: “Guys with gross
obesity telling guys just emerging from emaciation to go on a major diet.”

Evidence continues on the next page… (no text deleted)


RPS Aff 113
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [2/2]


India has entered negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012, in the same spirit. Indeed, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta of the Energy and Resources Institute,
who was involved in negotiating the Framework Convention and also the blue-print for the current negotiations, which is known as the Bali Action Plan, says it is a “mischievous
mis-statement” even to speak of the protocol expiring. Indian officials consider that the negotiations are to refresh, not replace, the protocol, mainly by imposing more ambitious
reduction targets on rich countries.
This would make an IPCC target of reducing global emissions by 25-40% by 2020 unrealisable, which is why India's negotiators insisted that the target be removed from a draft of
the Bali Action Plan. Supported by other developing countries, they also watered down the draft's most radical feature: a pledge by developing countries to undertake “measurable,
reportable and verifiable” efforts to cut their emissions. At India's instigation, the paragraph in which this phrase appeared was reshuffled, leaving its meaning unclear.
With such tough tactics, India has acquired an ugly reputation on the global front against climate change. Among big countries, perhaps only America and Russia are considered
more obdurate. Although China has shown no inclination to commit to specific emissions-cutting targets in the post-Kyoto discussions, some Chinese academics familiar with the
process say that after China reaches a certain per head emissions level it might agree to cut emissions. It is anxious not to be cast as a global-warming villain, particularly given
pressures mounting on it over issues ranging from trade to Tibet. China
is looking to America for its cue. If America commits itself to carbon
cuts, China will feel obliged to make some kind of promise too.
Many see India as unhelpful by comparison. Almost nothing could annoy India more. Partly in response, perhaps, Mr Singh has shown some flexibility. At a G8 summit in June
last year, he pledged that India's carbon-dioxide emissions per head would never exceed developed countries'. In effect a challenge to the industrialised world to cap India's
emissions by curbing their own, this was more imaginative than has been widely recognised. And yet China is perceived to be taking the problem more seriously than India. This is
partly because China is doing a lot to try to curb its energy use—but for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Jia Feng of the Ministry of Environmental Protection says the country's chief concern driving energy policy is security. Imports supply only 10% of China's total energy demand
(70% of which is met by coal), but oil is essential for transport. Lacking the military power to protect far-flung sea lanes, China feels vulnerable.
Next on its list of worries is local pollution caused by sulphur dioxide, atmospheric particulate matter and wastewater. Acid rain affects a third of China's land and hundreds of
thousands of people die from pollution-related cancer every year. Industrial filth has sparked protests.
A slogan for the planet
The government is trying to curb the use of fossil fuels and promote renewable energy. In 2006 it announced plans to cut the amount of energy consumed for each unit of GDP. The
goal is to reduce energy intensity by 20% by the end of the decade. “Save energy, cut emissions” is now one of the party's favourite slogans. Boosting energy-efficiency and the use
of renewables not only helps secure energy supplies and cuts local pollution, but also helps keep carbon emissions in check too.
Amid the recent global upsurge of climate-related anxiety, China's leaders have spun its energy-efficiency drive as greenery. In its first published policy
paper on energy, which came out last year, the government said it aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and the Beijing Olympic games are to be a showcase for China's new-
found greenery. The first “carbon neutral” summer games involve solar power aplenty, tree-planting, banning many cars from the streets and “reducing emissions from enterprises”
(temporarily shutting many of them down, presumably). The games, say officials, will produce 1.18m tonnes of CO2 and the countermeasures will save 1.03-1.30m tonnes.
The energy-efficiency drive is spreading out from Beijing. Provincial leaders are required to meet “save energy, cut emissions” targets in order to gain promotion. Of 800 county-
level party chiefs questioned in an official survey published in May, a surprising 40% said meeting environmental protection goals should be a critical determinant of their careers.
Fewer than 2% said meeting economic growth targets should be given such a priority.
Still, the goal of achieving a 20% reduction in energy intensity by 2010 seems a long way off. In 2006, the first year of the campaign, it fell
by only 1.3% and last year by around 3.3%. To meet the target it would need reductions averaging 5% for each of the next three years. It will be hard to do this while holding down
energy prices. Academics at the Development Research Centre, an official think-tank, recently said a 15% increase in energy prices by 2010 would promote “conspicuous energy
savings”. But the party's political will has its limits. For all its eagerness to save energy, it fears higher prices could stoke inflation and regime-threatening protests.
But China is making considerable efforts to boost the amount of energy produced by non-fossil fuels. By
2020 the aim is to generate 15% of energy from
renewable sources, up from around 7% in 2005. This is a big step up from the previous goal of 10% by 2020. China's investment in renewable energy last year,
about $10 billion, was second only to Germany's.
Still, even if China meets this target, carbon emissions will continue growing rapidly too. The
biggest concern among climate-change activists around
the world is the impact of Chinese coal—and also Indian coal. China and India have the world's third and fourth biggest coal reserves; though much of
India's is currently out-of-bounds, under protected forests and human settlements. Both countries are meanwhile trying to develop their renewables
sectors. For example, India is the world's fourth-biggest producer of wind power. Its solar yield is also bigger than any country
except America. Still, in the coming decades, both countries will remain heavily dependent on coal.
Which is why rich-world climate activists are placing their faith in two factors that appeal to India's and China's self-interest. The first is the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), a scheme whereby companies in rich countries outsource their obligation to cut carbon emissions, by sponsoring carbon-cutting schemes in poor countries. The CDM both
allows emissions to be cut efficiently, because reductions take place where they can be made most cheaply, and offers developing countries an incentive to clean up.
China, which has put a lot of government effort into it, has done far better than India out of the scheme. Last year China made more money than any other country out of rich-
world polluters—$5.4 billion, or 73% of the total. India, which, along with Brazil, came second, made $445m, 6% of the total. There are, however, question marks over the future
of the scheme, because some rich-world businesses and politicians are beginning to argue against handing over such large sums of money to Asia. China, meanwhile, says that it
needs not just money but also clean technology, and accuses rich-countries of being tight-fisted with their intellectual property.
The second factor that may encourage China and India to become greener is the growth of indigenous alternative-energy
companies. There, both China and India can claim some remarkable successes.
China's Suntech, which was founded in 2001, is the third-largest manufacturer of solar cells in the world. India's Suzlon Energy is one of the world's five biggest makers of wind
turbines; 15 years ago it was a modest Gujarati textiles firm. Both countries have innovative companies hungry to make money abroad and in growing local markets. As such
firms grow, so will the volume of calls for more climate-friendly policies in China and India.
This is good. And yet, at a time of fast-melting glaciers and strange rains, of spreading deserts and rising seas, it is a frail and distant promise. As China and India awaken to
climate change, few of their leaders and thinkers seem to expect a more solid solution: an ambitious replacement, or refreshment, of the Kyoto protocol. Such an accord would
have to involve more specific commitments from China, India and other developing countries. But it would depend, first of all, upon binding action by the developed world.
RPS Aff 114
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Energy Consumption / Pollution Increasing


China’s energy consumption is booming—it will surpass the US by 2010.

Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources
Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK

In the last quarter century, China's breakneck economic growth has lifted over 50 million people out of poverty and tripled
energy demand. Experts predict that China will surpass the United States to become the world's largest consumer of energy
and fossil fuels soon after 2010. And because of its heavy reliance on coal, China already emits more carbon dioxide than any
country on earth.
The rate and path of this energy growth is of enormous consequence for both China and the world. At stake are issues of
global importance, including climate change and competition over dwindling oil resources. Perhaps more important for
China, however, are domestic concerns such as severe urban air pollution, energy security, and sustained economic growth.

China is the largest contributor of CO2 emissions—alternative energy is necessary to prevent devastating climate
change

Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources
Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK

At the global level, China's rapid growth in coal and oil consumption is widely recognized for its contribution to climate
change. The International Energy Agency estimates that in late 2007, China bypassed the U.S. to become the world's largest
emitter of carbon dioxide and predicts that if the current policy scenario remains unchanged, China will account for 40
percent of the total growth in CO2 emissions worldwide between 2005 and 2030. Within the Kyoto Protocol Framework,
China is not an Annex 1 Country and thus has not had any international commitments to control CO2 emissions. However, in
June 2007 the Chinese government issued its first climate change strategy, and domestic Chinese policy emphasizes energy
efficiency, increased use of renewable energy and robust reforestation.

China is becoming the world’s largest polluter. It’s energy policy will determine the environment of the planet

Bader 6 – Director, John L. Thornton China Center – [Jeffrey A., Brookings Institute, The Energy Future: China and the U.S.
- What the United States ought to Do,” 2-6-08, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2006/0208china_bader.aspx]

Pollution: China will be the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. It already is a major contributor to
pollution in Hong Kong and Japan. As its economy grows, its energy choices will affect not only the health of its own
citizens, but the environment of the planet.
RPS Aff 115
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – China Not Solving Now


China is committed to resolving its pollution crisis but will fail without assistance

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

China’s leaders recognize that they must change course. They are vowing to overhaul the growth-first philosophy of the Deng
Xiaoping era and embrace a new model that allows for steady growth while protecting the environment. In his equivalent of a
State of the Union address this year, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made 48 references to “environment,” “pollution” or
“environmental protection.”
The government has numerical targets for reducing emissions and conserving energy. Export subsidies for polluting
industries have been phased out. Different campaigns have been started to close illegal coal mines and shutter some heavily
polluting factories. Major initiatives are under way to develop clean energy sources like solar and wind power. And
environmental regulation in Beijing, Shanghai and other leading cities has been tightened ahead of the 2008 Olympics.
Yet most of the government’s targets for energy efficiency, as well as improving air and water quality, have gone unmet. And
there are ample signs that the leadership is either unwilling or unable to make fundamental changes.
Land, water, electricity, oil and bank loans remain relatively inexpensive, even for heavy polluters. Beijing has declined to
use the kind of tax policies and market-oriented incentives for conservation that have worked well in Japan and many
European countries.

China’s current approach to expand renewable energy will fail – it relies too much on environmentally destructive
hydroelectric power

Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources
Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK

Even with improved energy efficiency, demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow unless alternative energy sources are
pursued. China has set a preliminary goal to increase the share of renewable energy in total energy use to 16 percent by 2020.
Much of this growth will be achieved via hydroelectric power, although wind power is also becoming cost competitive in
some areas and contains enormous potential. The controversial Three Gorges Dam, which displaced nearly two million
people, will become the largest hydroelectric facility in the world upon completion in 2009. However, building new dams is
also environmentally problematic, especially considering escalating water scarcity throughout the country. For the
foreseeable future, China will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Technologies exist, however, to mitigate some of the
worst effects of fossil fuels, and introducing taxes or incentives will facilitate the adoption of such technologies. For example,
in 2006, Beijing raised the sulfur pollution tax on power plants and introduced a market incentive to help offset the cost of
installing flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment, which removes SO2 from a plant's emissions stream. Virtually all of coal
power plants built since then have installed FGD systems. This instance reveals the potential of market-based incentives in
regulating other pollutants, including NOx and CO2.
RPS Aff 116
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Death Impacts


We control systemic impact calculus—over 400,000 people die every year from pollution in China.

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] //LDK

The toll this pollution has taken on human health remains a delicate topic in China. The leadership has banned publication of
data on the subject for fear of inciting social unrest, said scholars involved in the research. But the results of some research
provide alarming evidence that the environment has become one of the biggest causes of death.
An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that 300,000 people
die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An additional 110,000 deaths could be
attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction
materials, said a person involved in that study.
Another report, prepared in 2005 by Chinese environmental experts, estimated that annual premature deaths attributable to
outdoor air pollution were likely to reach 380,000 in 2010 and 550,000 in 2020.
RPS Aff 117
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Agriculture Impact


Fossil fuels cause black carbon particulates in China—they destroy agriculture and are responsible for rampant
global warming.

McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University
and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences
of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf] // LDK

A more recent and potentially more important problem identified by Streets (2000, 2004) and others is the emission of black
carbon. Black carbon is the fine particulates that are released from imperfect combustion of carbonaceous materials. Any
visitors to Chinese cities are familiar with the thick haze that frequently envelopes many areas. Current work suggests that
direct action to reduce the emissions of black carbon from household energy use and burning of forests and agricultural waste
is an important issue that needs urgent attention in China. Understanding of black carbon emissions is only fairly recent due
to the work of Hamilton and Mansfield (1991), Hansen et al (1998) and Streets (2004). Black carbon is classified as an
aerosol and is therefore not included in the Kyoto Protocol. However, studies by Streets and others suggest it is a critical
issue for China. The consequences of black carbon are wide ranging: reduced visibility; serious health problems; damage to
buildings. Estimates suggest that agriculture crop productivity might be reduced significantly (by up to 30% for rise and
wheat)16. Streets (2004 p.3) argues that black carbon is the second most important warming agent behind carbon dioxide.
Using circulation models, Menon (2002) et al estimate that black carbon is responsible for local climaste problems in China
such as increased drought in northern China and summer floods in southern China. The time lag between reducing black
carbon emissions and significant local climate effects is estimated to be around five years – a far quicker effect on climate
than the implications of tackling carbon dioxide emissions which are measured in many decades. The estimated sources of
black carbon are contained in Figure 6. Surprisingly a vast majority of emissions are from residential energy use rather than
electricity generation or transportation. Residential burning of coal accounted for 83% of emissions in 1995. This is due to
the fact that 80% of Chinese households use solid/biomass fuels for cooking and heating (WHO (2004)). Thus black carbon
is likely to be an important issue that authorities are yet to tackle. Part of the reason is that is a relatively recently understood
problem and partly because the solution doesn’t lie in the energy generation sectors but in the use of energy by households.
There are a number of significant environmental problems associated with energy use in China. These have had large
economic costs in the past. With the enormous expected rise in energy use in China over coming decades outlined in Section
2, the environmental problems associated with rising Chinese energy use is going to accentuate these problems. Policies
aimed at these problems will need to broaden in scale and scope. While existing problems are beginning to be tackled, new
problems such as global climate change are emerging and China due to its size and speed of economic growth is a major
player at the global level.

Pollution collapses Chinese agriculture by turning farmland into desert

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

But pollution poses its own threat. Officials blame fetid air and water for thousands of episodes of social unrest. Health care
costs have climbed sharply. Severe water shortages could turn more farmland into desert. And the unconstrained expansion of
energy-intensive industries creates greater dependence on imported oil and dirty coal, meaning that environmental problems
get harder and more expensive to address the longer they are unresolved.
RPS Aff 118
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Economy Impact


Air pollution in China causes massive environmental and health costs that damage its economy. Reduction in carbon
emissions would cause a boost in GDP

McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University
and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences
of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf] // LDK

The environmental and health impacts of energy use cover a range of issues from local particulate emissions which have
important impacts within China; to acid rain which has both local and regional impacts; and as well to carbon dioxide
emissions which have global implications. At the local level, a number of studies have explored air pollution caused by
energy use in China. The term “air pollution” covers a wide range of problems including emissions of particulates, sulphur
dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide. The estimated costs of air pollution, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels vary
in size. A study by the World Bank (1997) valued health damages from air pollution at 5% of GDP in 1995 although other
studies such as Yang and Schreifels (2003) suggest this is closer to 2% of GDP.. A study by Garbaccio, Ho and Jorgenson
(1999) found that for a reduction in carbon emissions of 5% every year would reduce local health costs by 0.2% of GDP
annually. A recent report by the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)10 on the environment notes that air quality
in cities across China has generally improved but this is from a base of significant problems in most major Chinese cities.
The World Health Organization (WHO (2004)) notes that only 31% of Chinese cities met the WHO standards for air quality
in 2004. A large part of these air quality problems are directly related to energy use. Whether the projection of rising energy
use over the coming decade directly lead to projections of increased environmental problems is a critical issue facing
policymakers in China. This is well understood in China. Premier Wen Jiabao in his March 5th 2005 report to the National
Peoples Congress argued that improved energy conservation was necessary to reconcile rapid economic growth with limited
energy resources – he also called for stronger pollution controls. The State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA)
11 originally established in 1988 as the National Environmental Protection Agency has also been implementing more
stringent monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation. Particulate emissions cause serious health problems with
identifiable economic costs as well as human costs. A recent study by Ho and Jorgenson (2003) finds the largest sources of
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) are the largest users of coal – electricity, nonmetal mineral products and metals smelting
as well as transportation. One of the worst pollutants from burning fossil fuels is sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. This has
local (health and acid rain) as well as regional (acid rain) implications. The WHO estimates that more than 600 million
people are exposed to SO2 levels above the WHO standards12. SO2 mixing with nitrogen oxides (NOX) causes acid rain.
The WHO (2004)13 estimates that acid rain seriously affects 30% of China. However this is not just a problem for China.
Streets (1997) estimates that China accounted for 81% of SO2 emissions in North East Asia in 1990. China is the major
source of acid rain across north East Asia. Without any control policies, Streets estimated in 1997 that this share would
change little by 2010 except that the quantity of emissions is expected to grow by 213% from 1990 to 2010 by 273% by
2020. Assuming installation of state of the art flue-gas desulphurization systems Streets estimated that this scenario could be
transformed so that SO2 emissions fall to 31% of 1990 emissions by 2020. China has begun to address this problem with
pilot Sulphur Dioxide emission trading systems in a number of control zones and closing of high sulphur coal mines as well
as other direct controls. In fact sulphur dioxide emissions have fallen gradually since from1995 to 2002 but rose again in
2003. The decline was a result of direct controls and other policies, although acid rain problems have not fallen because of a
substitution of emission towards high stack sources which spread SO2 over greater areas14. Direct policy to deal with
sulphur dioxide emissions would seem to have a significant benefit for China and across the region and the Chinese
authorities are acting on this15. Experimentation with price based charging and emissions trading systems have yielded
encouraging results and should be used more extensively to reduce the emission of sulphur from the projected increasing use
of coal for generating energy in the coming decade.
RPS Aff 119
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Economy Impact


China economic contraction causes global depression, Taiwanese invasion, and backsliding into authoritarianism.

Lewis 7 – Director of the Economic Research Council – [Dan, “The Nightmare of a Chinese Economic Collapse,” World
Finance, 4-19-07, http://www.worldfinance.com/news/137/ARTICLE/1144/2007-04-19.html] // LDK

According to Professor David B. Smith, one of the City’s most accurate and respected economists in recent years, potentially
far more serious though is the impact that Chinese monetary policy could have on many Western nations such as the UK.
Quite simply, China’s undervalued currency has enabled Western governments to maintain artificially strong currencies,
reduce inflation and keep interest rates lower than they might otherwise be. We should therefore be very worried about how
vulnerable Western economic growth is to an upward revaluation of the Chinese yen. Should that revaluation happen to
appease China’s rural poor, at a stroke, the dollar, sterling and the euro would quickly depreciate, rates in those currencies
would have to rise substantially and the yield on government bonds would follow suit. This would add greatly to the debt
servicing cost of budget deficits in the USA, the UK and much of Euro land. A reduction in demand for imported Chinese
goods would quickly entail a decline in China’s economic growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep
China’s society stable – ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating unemployment - the
minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population
from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal
and hard to ignore. It doesn’t end there. That will at best bring a global recession. The crucial point is that communist
authoritarian states have at least had some success in keeping a lid on ethnic tensions – so far. But when multi-ethnic
communist countries fall apart from economic stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they don’t
become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. There’s a very real chance that China might go the way of
Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union – chaos, civil unrest and internecine war. In the very worst case scenario, a Chinese
government might seek to maintain national cohesion by going to war with Taiwan – whom America is pledged to defend.
Today, people are looking at Chang’s book again. Contrary to popular belief, foreign investment has actually deferred
political reform in the world’s oldest nation. China today is now far further from democracy than at any time since the
Tianneman Square massacres in 1989. Chang’s pessimistic forecast for China was probably wrong. But my fear is there is at
least a chance he was just early.

Chinese economic prosperity is key to its political stability

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

For the Communist Party, the political calculus is daunting. Reining in economic growth to alleviate pollution may seem
logical, but the country’s authoritarian system is addicted to fast growth. Delivering prosperity placates the public, provides
spoils for well-connected officials and forestalls demands for political change. A major slowdown could incite social unrest,
alienate business interests and threaten the party’s rule.
RPS Aff 120
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Pollution Impacts


China’s reliance on fossil fuels causes rampant air pollution and economic contraction—thousands die as a result

Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources
Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK

China's current energy mix is strongly influenced by resource availability. With 13 percent of global coal reserves--compared
to only one percent for oil and natural gas--China meets over two-thirds of its domestic energy needs with coal (BP p.I.c
2007). As the dirtiest of fossil fuels, coal combustion accounts for the vast majority of domestic emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). As a result, China has many of the world's most polluted cities: urban
air pollution accounted for 3.4 percent of all deaths in 2001 (DCP2 2006). When burned in homes, coal and other solid fuels
create indoor air pollution responsible for even more deaths (five percent in 2001).
In addition, acid rain caused by SO2 pollution has affected one-third of China's land, rendering some soils uncultivable (BBC
News 2006). In 2005 alone, there were $60 billion in direct economic damages from SO2 (Rosen & Houser 2007). Some of
this pollution is also carried by the wind into neighboring countries and as far as the west coasts of the United States and
Canada.

Excessive coal usage is the primary cause of Chinese pollution

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

For air quality, a major culprit is coal, on which China relies for about two-thirds of its energy needs. It has abundant supplies
of coal and already burns more of it than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. But even many of its newest coal-
fired power plants and industrial furnaces operate inefficiently and use pollution controls considered inadequate in the West.
Expanding car ownership, heavy traffic and low-grade gasoline have made autos the leading source of air pollution in major
Chinese cities. Only 1 percent of China’s urban population of 560 million now breathes air considered safe by the European
Union, according to a World Bank study of Chinese pollution published this year. One major pollutant contributing to China’s
bad air is particulate matter, which includes concentrations of fine dust, soot and aerosol particles less than 10 microns in
diameter (known as PM 10).
The level of such particulates is measured in micrograms per cubic meter of air. The European Union stipulates that any
reading above 40 micrograms is unsafe. The United States allows 50. In 2006, Beijing’s average PM 10 level was 141,
according to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. Only Cairo, among world capitals, had worse air quality as measured
by particulates, according to the World Bank.
Emissions of sulfur dioxide from coal and fuel oil, which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as acid
rain, are increasing even faster than China’s economic growth. In 2005, China became the leading source of sulfur dioxide
pollution globally, the State Environmental Protection Administration, or SEPA, reported last year.
Other major air pollutants, including ozone, an important component of smog, and smaller particulate matter, called PM 2.5,
emitted when gasoline is burned, are not widely monitored in China. Medical experts in China and in the West have argued
that PM 2.5 causes more chronic diseases of the lung and heart than the more widely watched PM 10.
RPS Aff 121
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Warming / Biodiversity Impacts


Chinese coal usage causes devastating global warming and biodiversity loss

CSM 8 (Christian Science Monitor, Jacques Leslie, “China’s Pollution Nightmare Is now Everyone’s pollution nightmare,”
March 19, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html?page=2] // LDK

The emergence of China as a dominant economic power is an epochal event, occasioning the most massive and rapid
redistribution of the earth's resources in human history. The country has also become a ravenous consumer. Its appetite for
raw materials drives up international commodity prices and shipping rates while its middle class, projected to jump to 700
million by 2020, is learning the gratifications of consumerism. The catch is that China has become not just the world's
manufacturer but its despoiler, on a scale as monumental as its economic expansion. A fourth of the country is now desert.
More than three-fourths of its forests have disappeared. Each year, uncontrollable underground fires, sometimes triggered by
lightning or mining accidents, consume 200 million tons of coal, contributing massively to global warming. A miasma of
lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other elements of coal-burning and car exhaust hovers over most Chinese cities.
Meanwhile, roughly 70 percent of the world's discarded computers and electronic equipment ends up in China, where it is
scavenged for usable parts and then abandoned, polluting soil and groundwater with toxic metals. If unchecked, such
devastation will not just put an abrupt end to China's economic growth, but, in concert with other environmentally heedless
nations (in particular, the US, India, and Brazil), will cause mortal havoc in societies and ecosystems throughout the world.

Chinese acid rain collapses biodiversity

CSM 8 (Christian Science Monitor, Jacques Leslie, “China’s Pollution Nightmare Is now Everyone’s pollution nightmare,”
March 19, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html?page=2] // LDK

The process is already under way. Acid rain caused by China's sulfur-dioxide emissions severely damages forests and
watersheds in Korea and Japan and impairs air quality in the US. Every major river system flowing out of China is threatened
with one sort of cataclysm or another. The surge in untreated waste and agricultural runoff pouring into the Yellow and China
Seas has caused frequent fish die-offs, and overfishing is endangering many ocean species. The growing Chinese taste for
furs and exotic foods and pets is devastating neighboring countries' populations of everything from gazelles to wolves, and
turtles to parrots, while its appetite for shark fin soup is causing drastic declines in shark populations throughout the oceans.
According to a study published in Science in March 2007, the absence of the oceans' top predators is causing a resurgence of
skates and rays, which are in turn destroying scallop fisheries along America's Eastern Seaboard. Enthusiasm for traditional
Chinese medicine is causing huge declines in populations of hundreds of animals – including tigers, pangolins, and sea
horses. Seeking oil, timber, and other natural resources, China is building massive roads, bridges, and dams throughout
Africa, often disregarding international environmental and social standards. China has also depended on imports of illegally
cut wood in becoming the world's wood workshop, supplying oblivious consumers in the US and Europe with furniture,
flooring, and plywood. Chinese wood manufacturers have already consumed the natural forests of Thailand, Cambodia, and
the Philippines, and at current rates will swallow the forests of Indonesia, Burma, Papua New Guinea, and the vast Russian
Far East within two decades. Most of these forests are formally protected by law or regulation, but corruption and ineffectual
enforcement have fostered a flourishing illegal trade. China has probably already overtaken the US as the world's leading
emitter of CO2, and the country's ecosystems are displaying climate change's consequences: Arid northern China is drying
out, the wet south is seeing more and more flooding, and, according to a June 2007 Greenpeace report, 80 percent of the
Himalayan glaciers that feed Asia's mightiest rivers could disappear by 2035. Such a development would jeopardize hundreds
of millions of people who depend on the rivers for their livelihood.
RPS Aff 122
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency


If the US commits to alternative energy resulting exports to China will solve climate change and strengthen US
competitiveness

McDonough & Ogden 7 -- *Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. ** Program coordinator for National
Security and International Policy. [Denis Mcdonough and Peter Ogden, Center for American Progress, “Cleaning up China:
Opportunities Beckon for U.S. Businesses,” January 30, 2007,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/green_china.html] // LDK

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson goes before the Senate Banking Committee on January 31 to detail the state of his
recently launched U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue between key government officials in Washington and Beijing.
The committee members should be sure to ask Paulson about his plans for promoting business opportunities for U.S. green
technology companies in China.
Back in December, when Paulson made his first trip to China for the Strategic Economic Dialogue, we noted in a column in
the Washington Post that U.S. businesses could profit handsomely from a country that increasingly realizes it must go green
—if only the Bush administration would see the wisdom of promoting the products and services of U.S. green technology
companies to China. Well, very little has changed since then except this: Paulson’s boss has since then embraced the fact that
global warming is a serious threat to humanity. That, in turn, means that President Bush, Paulson, Congress and America’s
green technology companies can now all row in the same direction when it comes to helping China help itself and the planet
combat climate change. If the Bush administration is serious about finding innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions and
promote clean energy—and if it is serious about its intentions to help reverse the mammoth U.S. trade deficit with China—
then the Strategic Economic Dialogue is a promising place to begin. The U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue counts
energy and the environment among its planks, which is a good launching pad for a new export promotion initiative. Paulson
could pave the way for green technology to become as successful a U.S. export to China as airplanes and software by striking
an agreement with his Chinese counterpart to facilitate such transactions.

The US must seize the opportunity to export alternative energy to China—it solves global warming and economic
contraction

McDonough & Ogden 7 -- *Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. ** Program coordinator for National
Security and International Policy. [Denis Mcdonough and Peter Ogden, Center for American Progress, “Cleaning up China:
Opportunities Beckon for U.S. Businesses,” January 30, 2007,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/green_china.html] // LDK

China, like the United States, is not bound by any international commitment to reduce its carbon emissions, but there are
signs that Beijing has begun to recognize the dangers of fossil fuel dependence and the resulting environmental damage.
China’s latest Five Year Plan on national priorities and goals places unprecedented emphasis on environmental sustainability.
Moreover, there is growing awareness that its energy security will be enhanced by diversifying away from fossil fuels.
China’s interest in clean energy presents an enormous business opportunity as well as an environmental one. Unfortunately, it
is an opportunity that the United States has not yet fully seized. A study released in October by former World Bank Chief
Economist Nicholas Stern on the economic impact of climate change calculated that the markets for low-carbon energy
projects will be worth at least $500 billion by 2050. In other words, combating global warming is not only an environmental
necessity, but a vast economic opportunity.
Some U.S. investment companies are beginning to take notice. Morgan Stanley recently announced that it plans to invest
some $3 billion in the carbon trading market and other clean energy related projects. But if the United States does not do
more to promote the development of our domestic clean energy sector industry, it will find that its international competitors
will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this new market.
RPS Aff 123
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency


Only a US energy policy that disseminates its technology to China can solve global warming.

Brown 5 – Program manager of Citizens for Global Solutions – [Rebecca, The Lugar Energy Initiative, “The Case for a
Comprehensive, Globally-Focused Energy Policy,” 2005, http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/links/commentary/05Brown.cfm] //
LDK

The United States needs a comprehensive, globally focused energy policy to deal with the challenges to security, development and the
environment posed by the world’s fossil fuel dependence. Recognizing that the United States is embedded in a complex web of energy interdependence, such a plan would seek:
To reduce domestic consumption of fossil fuels, whether produced abroad or domestically
To achieve a global transition away from fossil fuel technology and towards diverse, sustainable energy sources, including:
Support for the creation and dissemination of alternative energy technologies at an affordable price
An adoption of these alternatives and a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel consumption by major consumers – in particular
the United States, India and China
Working with developing countries to ensure access to the clean and safe energy tools they need to meet their growing energy
needs and lift themselves out of poverty without contributing to global warming
Providing alternatives to nuclear power for countries that wish to diversify their energy sources
To ensure that the world’s energy resources are not used as political bargaining tools.
Focus on Developing Countries
An effective energy plan must recognize developing countries’ significant role in today’s energy market, and place special emphasis on
working with these countries to meet their energy needs without contributing to global warming or undermining international security. Over the next twenty
years, 70% of energy demand growth will occur in developing countries, with China alone accounting for 30% of that growth. China is
expected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010; developing countries are predicted to account for more than three-quarters of increases in
CO2 emissions between 2004 and 2030. Helping developing countries gain access to the alternative energy technologies they need to meet
their growing energy needs without significantly increasing their greenhouse gas emissions is essential in order to halt global
warming. It will also prevent conflict and instability by reducing competition over fossil fuel resources. Developing and disseminating alternative energy
technologies on a global scale is key to accomplishing a successful transition away from fossil fuel consumption. Although it has its
limitations, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol is one example of an international financing device designed to stimulate private sector investment in new energy technologies
building more effective mechanisms to support the development and
while enhancing developing countries’ access to those technologies. However,
dissemination of new energy technologies will require the US to re-engage internationally on energy and climate issues.

China is committed to stronger cooperation over alternative energy with the US

Xinhau News 8 [“Chinese vice-premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results” 6-17-8
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/17/content_8381904.htm] // LDK

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan has called for stronger cooperation between China and the United States in energy, the
environment and other related areas, saying that bilateral cooperation in these areas would lead to win-win results.
"The Chinese government gives high priority to energy and resources conservation and the protection of the environment. It
is committed to building a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society," Vice Premier Wang wrote in an article
published by The Financial Times on Monday in its North American edition.
"However, China is a big and populous developing country at a stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization. This
has led to heavy consumption of energy and resources and made the task of protecting the environment a daunting one," he
said.

US cooperation is crucial to successful energy policy in China

Xinhau News 8 [“Chinese vice-premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results” 6-17-8
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/17/content_8381904.htm] // LDK
To meet the challenges brought about by the pressures of growing demand, Wang said China has endeavored to achieve the following goals: intensifying energy and resource conservation, developing
renewable energy, and actively adapting to global climate change.
"There is a broad scope for cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environment," he wrote. "Stronger cooperation
between the two countries in energy and the environment will enable China to respond better to energy and environmental
issues and also bring about tremendous business opportunities and handsome returns for American business."
According to the intent of the 10-year cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environmental protection, Wang said the two countries should, on the basis of the
principles of mutual complementarity and win-win progress, focus their cooperation in energy, pollution reduction and
protection of natural resources.
[Note – Wang Qishan is the Chinese Vice Premier]
RPS Aff 124
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations


Exporting renewables provides a mechanism to enhance U.S.-Sino energy cooperation

Zhao 7 – President China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations – [Hongtu Zhao, Anna Lindh Programme on
Conflict Prevention, 2007 Edition, “Energy and Conflict Prevention,”
http://www.ewi.info/pdf/AnnaLindhProgrammeonConflictPrevention.pdf] // LDK

Because China and the U.S. are two big oil consumers and importers, it is undeniable that there are collisions of interest and competition between them in their attempts to
diversify energy supplies, explore and tap the overseas energy resources, but their competition and conflicts do not cancel out the need for cooperation. If there is more competition
in tapping and exploiting the external resources, there is a bright outlook for cooperation in many fields such as stabilizing the world market, developing new energy, saving
energy, enhancing efficiency and protecting the environment. From
a perspective of “mega-energy” or “megasecurity,” which encompasses oil,
gas, coal, electricity and renewable resources, China and the United States find more cooperation than competition. In essence, China’s
energy strategy is not incompatible with that of the U.S. Just as Dr Fiona Hill, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution and an expert on international energy issues, points out,
China’s oil strategy will not conflict with that of the U.S. whether at present or in the long term.9 The
two countries are interdependent on energy issues,
sharing many common interests. The main target of U.S. energy security policy is to ensure that there is enough oil in the world market, so that the U.S. and other big
western oil consumers can always have access to sufficient oil supply. Because the world oil market is highly integrated, a cut-off of oil supply anywhere will impact the whole
market, menace global oil security and affect world economic growth. Against a backdrop of globalization, the U.S. can hardly go it alone on energy issues. As fast growing
economies and big oil consumers and importers, both China and the U.S. need a stable and reliable energy supply, and they desire a steady oil price. As the trend of economic
globalization further develops and their interdependence in trade, investment and other fields increasingly deepens, China and America become a fate community. China’s energy
demand will fuel global economic growth, thus consolidating the prosperity of U.S. economy. Meanwhile, China spends most of its trade surplus on U.S. government bonds. If the
money is quickly withdrawn, American interest rate may be pushed up and its economic growth hampered. Some Americans have already recognized the fact that China’s
economic growth now serves as an engine for the economic prosperity of the whole world, in which the U.S. is a member. For some Americans, dread of China’s economic rise has
been replaced by worries about deceleration of China’s economic growth. They fear that any shortage of energy supply will hinder China’s economic growth, thus darkening
American and even the whole world’s economic out- look. Therefore, both conflicts in the oil field and China’s economic recession resulting from energy shortage will in the end
harm the interests of both sides. Furthermore, China
and the U.S. need to grapple with many identical problems and challenges in the fields
of energy and environment. As the world’s two largest energy consumers, they are also the two biggest coal users and carbon
dioxide emitters, facing ever-increasing pressure from the international society to reduce greenhouse gas emission. In recent
years, the risk of international energy transportation has markedly increased because of large expansion of the volume of international trade, extension of the supply chain and
increase of regional conflicts, terrorist attacks and organized crimes. Being two big marine transporters of oil, both countries have stakes in safe sea-lanes and have an urgent need
China and the U.S. complement each other in the energy field and there
to strengthen their cooperation in fighting terrorism and piracy on the sea.
is ample space for cooperation. The U.S. possesses advanced management experience in the fields of developing new and
renewable energy, saving energy, raising energy efficiency and protecting the environment, and enjoys advantages in
technology, capital and manpower. Meanwhile, China’s energy and environmental industries ranging from electricity
production, oil and natural gas tapping, coal belt methane exploitation, energy saving, new energy developing, to atmosphere
purification, are facing an unprecedented opportunity, thus creating a huge market demand for technologies and managing
experience in many fields such as developing new and renewable energy, raising energy efficiency and protecting the environment.

Energy cooperation is crucial to prevent Sino-US war

Hu 8 – Visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies – [Richard Weixing Hu, “Advancing Sino-US
Cooperation Amid Oil Price Hikes,” Brookings Institute, March 18, 2008,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/03_energy_hu.aspx]

The United States and China are the largest and second largest energy consumers in the world, respectively. Last year China
was a net-importer of 159.28 million tons of crude oil, about 46% of its total consumption. The size of U.S. petroleum
imports was 3.2 times larger than those of China, and Americans depend on foreign sources for over 60% of the energy they
consume. With that in mind, Beijing and Washington have similar concerns in their energy policies and face the same set of
challenges: high dependency on foreign sources of energy, rising energy-related environmental impacts, and energy
conservation and efficiency, in addition to the effect on their economies of energy price spikes. Although China and the
United States do not rely on each other for energy supplies, as the two largest oil consuming countries they are natural
“energy bedfellows” in coping with similar challenges. They must cooperate, through joint or parallel action, to keep global
energy supplies open, secure, and at an affordable price level. Neither country can hope to achieve much without the support
of the other. Both would win if they choose to cooperate rather than confront each other in their pursuit of energy security.
RPS Aff 125
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations


Sino-US cooperation on alternative causes global transition
China Daily News 8 [“China, US benefit from clean energy,” January 10,
http://www.10thnpc.org.cn/english/environment/238798.htm] // LDK

Sino-US collaboration on clean energy technology will set a good example for other countries, US Commerce Assistant
Secretary David Bohigian said yesterday.
The two countries have much to gain by working together on knocking down trade barriers and working jointly in such fields
as alternative energy, he said.
"If China and the United States are not working together, the problems will only get worse when it comes to air pollution,
water pollution and climate change," Bohigian, whose job mainly concerns international economic policy, said.
The assistant secretary this week led the Second Clean-Energy Trade Mission to China. It consists of 17 US companies with
advanced technology ranging from solar power to clean coal.
The continuing rapid growth of the Chinese economy presents unparalleled opportunities and challenges, he said. "US clean-
energy companies can help China meet its enormous energy demands while deploying technology that benefits the
environment."

Sustainable energy in China is crucial to global economic growth and Sino-US relations

Hu 8 – Visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies – [Richard Weixing Hu, “Advancing Sino-US
Cooperation Amid Oil Price Hikes,” Brookings Institute, March 18, 2008,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/03_energy_hu.aspx] // LDK

Chinese economic growth and the U.S. economy have become highly interdependent with each other, with a bilateral trade
volume of $386.7 billion in 2007. The U.S. economy has enjoyed an average 3.5% growth since 1992 with relatively low
inflation. On the whole the United States has benefited greatly from a steady inflow of low-priced “Made in China” products,
which has helped to keep the overall price of consumer goods low and consumer confidence high. On the other side of the
linkage, Chinese economic growth has also benefited from its strong exports to the American market over the years. In
assessing this interdependent economic relationship, it should not be forgotten that a sufficient and affordable energy supply
and an abundant supply of cheap labor in China have been the key ingredients to this successful story. China’s economic
miracle is based on labor-intensive, low-wage manufacturing and robust exports. Without a sufficient and affordable energy
supply, this path of export-driven growth would encounter serious problems, and so would the Sino-U.S economic
relationship, in its current form.
RPS Aff 126
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Terrorism Ext – Cooperation


A good international reputation is key to deeper collaboration and lower transaction costs

Busby, 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin


(Josh, “Memo on Reputation,” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations
Theory' at Princeton, April 2006, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP

Does it Matter if States are Unreliable?


Even if we accept that reputations are relevant for political interactions, how significant are the costs of failure to make or
keep promises, particularly to one’s friends? The basic argument of reputation theory is that failure to keep promises will lead
to some form of punishment by the other side. This may take the form of punitive sanctions, or more likely, a loss of a stream
of benefits over time as would-be collaborators make fewer and more shallow cooperative agreements. States with
better reputations will be able to get better terms for the agreements they make. Countries with a bad reputation will incur
higher transactions costs to get other actors to update their expectations of what the state is likely to do (Larson 1997, Tomz
1998, Guzman 2002, Miller 2003).

Terrorists will use Europe as a platform for attacks – cooperation is critical to solving

BBC News, 8 (“US fears Europe-based terrorism,” 1-16-2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7190788.stm) // DNB

One of the biggest threats to US security may now come from within Europe, US Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff
has told the BBC. He said militant attacks and plots in Europe over recent years had made the US aware of the "real risk that
Europe will become a platform for terrorists". Mr Chertoff said it was likely security checks on travellers from Europe would
be increased. But he said steps would be taken to ensure travel and trade were not hit. In the interview on the BBC's World
News America, Mr Chertoff said he had seen "home-grown terrorism begin to rise in Europe". I have to say the biggest threat
comes from overseas, and one of the places we are increasingly worried about is Europe.” He cited deadly bomb attacks on
Madrid and London, and a terror alert affecting UK-US flights in August 2006, as well as "people travelling from South Asia
and the Middle East into Europe and carrying out attacks there". He said it was important to increase security checks on
passengers from Europe - most of whom are currently able to enter the United States without being screened first because of
a visa waiver programme. But Mr Chertoff added that immigration checks should not affect travel and trade - an important
part of the US economy.
RPS Aff 127
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Terrorism Ext – Impacts


U.S. lashout will kill hundreds of millions

Easterbrook, 1 – Fellow at the Brookings Institute


(Greg, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,” 11-1-2001, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html)

EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of nuclear
weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational. They knew that
if they struck, they would be struck in turn.
Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I
think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great
benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe,
because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that
followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a
dozen Muslim countries.
And that -- it is very much in the interest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the hands of
Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests.

Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction

Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain
-- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had
no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage
where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory
measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory
measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that
Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative
features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police
measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and
ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of
world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without
winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
RPS Aff 128
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Hegemony – Energy Policy Key to Global Leadership


U.S. international credibility is at an all-time low – an ambitious energy policy is the single best way to restore U.S.
global leadership. We solve all of your alternate causalities

Richardson, 8 - former US Secretary of Energy


(Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 72-75)

Further, other nations remember the Bush administration walking away from the Kyoto Protocol. Message: before the richest
country, the country that most pollutes the climate, will take on the financial burden of lowering its emissions, the rest of the
world, especially the poor, must do it first.
The Law of the Sea treaty, still not accepted by the United States, is another example. More than half the world’s population
lives near coastlines, and billions of people can tell that our oceans are suffering, that they reflect the pollution and over-
fishing at the hands of larger populations and more sophisticated technology over the decades. Yet the United States has
refused to participate in this needed international effort to protect the oceans. It is a further indication, in the minds of those
who doubt us, that we are in it for our own good at the expense of others, and that we live by double standards.
In these cases, in just a few short years, the United States went off on its own. There were problems with some of these
international agreements. But instead of withdrawing, it is our responsibility – and the world’s expectation of us as the
world’s leading proponent of markets and freedom – to work toward acceptable international arrangements. While most of
the world has reacted in anger and dismay to our new isolation and self-certainty, the right wing and neoconservatives praised
the president, saying we were leading the world into a new future. Even a lot of Republicans thought it was crazy. Like most
people, they realize that you’re not a leader if no one follows you.
I was born in the United States and spent much of my youth growing up in Mexico. I have traveled the world for decades. I
studied foreign policy in college and graduate school. I speak three languages (my French surprised my staff and a group of
visiting French scientists a couple of years ago), and I have worked and met face-to-face with many world leaders. Because
of my experience in Washington and at the United Nations, people from every imaginable country keep in touch with me,
even though I am the governor of a small, somewhat isolated state. In fact, as I write these lines, I am returning from North
Korea after my sixth trip to negotiate with that nation’s leaders on issues that separate the United States and North Korea.
Given my background, my interests, and my experience, I don’t make the following statement lightly.
I have never seen the United States as isolated, as alone, as it finds itself today.
World leaders are no longer our daily courtiers and contacts. The polls from most nations, including some of our closest
allies, show that approval and trust of the United States is at an all-time low – often in the single digits. It’s not just that the
United States has abdicated its leadership role as the leader of the free world. It’s also unsettlingly true that our leaders have
alienated people around the world. Polls show that even our longest-standing and closest allies look on us with suspicion.
Still, with the right leadership, this is a situation that shouldn’t take long to correct. The American people are full of optimism
and ingenuity. The people of the world want to believe that we are responsible and compassionate, that we are committed to
freedom and basic rights, and that we want to participate constructively in world affairs. Visionary leadership, and visionary
action to implement a new role for the United States, will turn the situation around quickly, and America will find itself
surrounded by friends and allies once again.
The key to regaining our leadership role will not be the war on terror, although it is very important, and we must guard
vigilantly against enemies who would perpetrate terror against us while we also work with other nations to root out terrorists
wherever they are. Nor will the key to new international leadership be trade agreements and economic prosperity, although
these are crucial. In this new, uncertain international age, the primary threat and opportunity is the creation of a new energy
future that provides hope and prosperity for the United States and other nations while protecting our global atmosphere.
In other words, the way back to world leadership – the necessary and unavoidable way back to world leadership – is for
America to combine the issues of energy security and climate protection, to set ambitious goals, and to make their
accomplishment the shared priority of leaders in Congress, in industry, and throughout the states. This will, in turn, help
spread participation, opportunity, and prosperity across the globe while preventing climate catastrophe.
Some say we’re a nation that use more than its share of resources and gives nothing back. But in fact we are a nation poised
to take the lead in conserving resources and in bringing needed technology to the world. Further, some say we’re a nation
with an agenda that doesn’t take the interests of other nations into account. That contradicts our proud history of building
peaceful institutions. We know that it’s the “big idea” – freedom, or civil government, or fair trade and commerce – that
matters, not just at home but around the world.
New leadership will show the world what America is about. We can work our way back to an international polity that
considers challenges and needs, and finds hopeful, promising, affordable solutions. We aren’t the nation that critics suspect
we are, and there may be no better forum than the international energy and climate dialogue to prove it.
RPS Aff 129
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Hegemony – Renewables / Market Key to Leadership


Promoting renewables is key to restoring U.S. global leadership – federal government must follow the lead of Western
states

Richardson, 8 – former US Secretary of Energy


(Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 58)

I have been excited to see how some of that fundamentally conservative philosophy has come back to the surface in the West
in recent years in the face of the Bush administration’s no-holds-barred assault on Western public lands and resources. And I
think the fact that Westerners have called for more balance, including alternative energy policies that bring renewable energy
into the marketplace in a significant way, is more support for my belief that America has the right stuff to reclaim its place in
the world by adopting balanced energy and climate policies both at home and abroad.
In other words, with policy and leadership like what we have had across the West in recent years, the United States does not
need to be, and will not be, alone in the world for very long.
Let me give you an example of the new Western leadership.
In 2004, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and I successfully proposed some new energy goals for the eighteen
states that were then members of the Western Governors’ Association. “Arnold,” as everyone on Earth knows him, had just
been elected governor and agreed with me during a phone conversation that we should work together to change the direction
of energy policy in the Western states, where so much of America’s energy is produced. Mostly, it’s from traditional fossil
energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. But the region has enormous renewable energy potential in the form of
wind, geothermal, and solar energy. And because energy has been relatively cheap in the West, it also has great potential for
energy efficiency.

Market based policies are key to U.S. leadership

Richardson, 8 - former US Secretary of Energy


(Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 186-187)

The power of markets is immense. That is one of the great lessons – besides democracy and human rights – that the United
States has taught the world over the past two centuries. The market has the power not only to create individual prosperity
and growth, as conceived by that great first-ever modern economist, Adam Smith, but also to achieve big things for society as
a whole. If we manage the carbon markets sensibly, with strict limits, smart incentives, and practical oversight – as we
manage the monetary supply via the Federal Reserve – we can foresee a market-based economy that actually works toward
reducing pollution rather than increasing it. We can use the market to provide consumers with new choices, while we also
reduce threats to the global climate.
We should embrace these market opportunities enthusiastically and optimistically. We don’t need to create large federal slush
funds by raising carbon taxes and allowing federal agencies to choose new research and technology options for study and
deployment. We can set an overall standard, auction pollution rights, and let the markets move toward protecting the climate.
We can give Detroit and other automakers some support for new technologies, and they will reverse their decades-long
decline.
It’s a positive, market-based way of addressing the twin threats to our national security: global warming and oil dependence.
It’s a new, integrated, comprehensive way of solving the biggest threats to our prosperity and our world leadership since
World War II.
It’s the first step toward leading by example.
RPS Aff 130
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg


Concessions by federal government on climate policy are necessary restore America’s international reputation,
engender important anti-terror cooperation with Europe and stop balancing against the U.S.

Busby, 7 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin


(Joshua, “Who Cares about the Weather? Climate Change and U.S. National Security,” Paper prepared for presentation at the
International Studies Association annual conference in Chicago, Illinois, March 1-3, 2007,
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP

Climate change and soft power


One such semi-pragmatic reason might be related to soft power, what Joe Nye defined as the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.”62
Engaging in successful humanitarian operations could potentially create positive feelings of association, as occurred in Indonesia after the tsunami. Failure to respond to calls for
intervention may leave deep resentments against Western governments for being hypocritical, racist, anti-Muslim, or anti-African. Of course, overzealous use of military power (as
in Somalia or Iraq) can have the opposite effect. States thus need to be judicious about their use of force for humanitarian ends and have multiple tools to address disasters,
foremost among them early warning systems and rapid reaction capability.
While response to climate-related disasters may enhance U.S. soft power, a
broader response to climate change writ large could also serve American
interests. The reputation of the United States in the world has not been this bad since the Vietnam War. One likely reason U.S.
popularity has suffered is because of the Bush Administration’s cavalier treatment of its allies on issues of importance to them
like climate change. The U.S.’s highhanded withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol at the start of the Bush tenure in 2001 confirmed Europe’s fears that Bush was a unilateral
cowboy in the thrall of oil companies. While we cannot know for sure if a different stance on climate change would have had any appreciable impact on America’s allies’
disposition towards the Iraq war, the rejectionist pose of the Bush Administration on climate has been part of the mix that soured
European publics on American leadership and likely made it costlier for the U.S. to get what it wants in the international
arena.63 Multilateralism, self-restraint, and giving one’s allies a voice in decision-making may be part of a sensible grand strategy for great powers. As John Ikenberry wrote in
After Victory, the U.S. construction of institutions in the post-World War II environment enshrined its influence and legitimated its rule in the West among its allies, making the
system easier to manage and more durable over the longer-term.64 It is this kind of pragmatism that led Ikenberry and Kupchan to call this approach “liberal realism.”65
It may make sense for the United States to cooperate on issues the Europeans care more about (climate change) so that they are
more willing and able to cooperate on issues the United States cares more about (terrorism).66 This could under certain circumstances, as
diagrammed in Figure 3, lead to reputational benefits for the United States, making it easier to achieve its core security objectives.
There are better and worse ways of going about rehabilitating the U.S. image. The U.S. pursuit of a climate strategy for reputational reasons could do little for the climate and little
to improve its international standing or might be successful but resented. Even when the U.S. proposes sound climate policies, these may be resisted. At the heart of the
Kyoto negotiations were flexibility mechanisms like emissions trading. At the time, these were fiercely resisted by the Europeans and yet now form the core part of Europe’s
approach to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Similarly, the Bush Administration has championed the idea of reducing the economy’s carbon intensity. This is a sensible metric
and should have great relevance to China and India where absolute emissions are likely to rise but concerted efforts to introduce cleaner energy technology should lead to lower
emissions per unit of output. Convincing the Chinese and Indians to accept an intensity target would be difficult but not impossible. However, because the Bush Administration’s
own target mirrored the natural rate of efficiency gains, the idea may have been sullied. If promoted by the United States, there are likely to be significant quarters of the
environmental community unwilling to recognize anything but a significant short-term emissions reduction target as a step forward. In the scheme of things, where net greenhouse
gas emissions need to fall on the order of 45-60% below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change, they are right.67 The hardest part for the U.S. however may be
getting started and sending a reasonably strong signal to the private sector that governments are serious and committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions over the long haul.
In any case, the U.S. needs to evaluate what price it is willing to pay for reputational advantages. Some policy choices may prove to be expensive ways of purchasing good
will. For example, the U.S. pledged at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period. Given that U.S. emissions grew more
than 15% in the 1990s, meeting that target would effectively require more than a 20% reduction in emissions.68 Different estimates of the costs of implementation of Kyoto were
calculated and ranged anywhere from 0.42% to 1.96% of GDP.69 While these may overestimate the costs of implementation, any administration that is not wedded to climate
protection goals for their own sake must evaluate different strategies for re-gaining others’ good will. There
may be other issues and ways to curry favor at
lower cost, namely being nice (i.e. diplomatic) and acting like you are listening to your allies. Such was the nature of the early visits to
Europe by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush in 2005. At some point, however, America’s allies will demand more substantive
action on climate.
If the U.S. government decides that for reputational reasons it would like to embrace climate change, then for its actions to be
credible, it might have to incur some reasonably significant costs. These need not be purely material; they could entail political costs
of standing up to core constituencies. To get credit from skeptical allies, the U.S. might have to do something unexpected or against type, such as a carbon tax, a
Patriot tax on gasoline as Thomas Friedman has suggested, or embrace of a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.70As a consequence, the U.S. could find its allies were
in a better position to support the country on issues of more central concern. Such a move would also make it more difficult
for critics to use the symbolism of U.S. obstructionism on climate for their own domestic grandstanding or to engage in
quasi-balancing behavior.71
RPS Aff 131
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg


Lack of action on warming is a key issue that galvanizing negative perceptions of the U.S.

NYT, 8 (Meg Bortin, “Global Image of U.S. Improves Slightly,” 6-13-2008,


www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/13pew.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin) // JMP

PARIS — There is good news and bad news for President Bush as he pursues his valedictory tour of Europe this week, according to a new worldwide study by the Pew Global
Attitudes Project. The image of the United States has improved slightly in many countries over the past year, the poll results show. But the new optimism appears to be driven
largely by the fact that Mr. Bush will soon be leaving office.
Meanwhile, the survey showed that many
across the globe blamed the United States at least in part for slumping economies and global warming.
“There has been no sea change in worldviews of the United States,” Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said of the results, which were
released Thursday. “Europeans are still much more negative than they were at the beginning of the decade, and highly negative views prevail in the Muslim world. But there are
some indications that the world sees the possibility of change with the prospect of a new president.”
The 24-nation survey, conducted in March and April, shows that many people who have been following the presidential race have greater confidence in Senator Barack Obama, the
presumptive Democratic nominee, than in his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, “to do the right thing regarding world affairs.” This feeling is strongest in Europe, Australia,
Japan and Tanzania, which borders Kenya, the homeland of Mr. Obama’s father.
Meanwhile, the survey found perceptions that China was ascendant in world affairs. Many people — including 3 out of 10 Americans — think that China will eventually replace
the United States as the world’s leading superpower.
But people are also critical of China, according to the poll, which was conducted shortly after civil unrest broke out in Tibet this spring. China’s overall favorability ratings have
slipped over the past year, and China is seen by many as ignoring the interests of other countries and is faulted on matters related to the environment and human rights.
Anxiety about the economy was reported as widespread.
“In three-quarters of the countries Pew surveyed (18), a majority now say that their national economic conditions are bad — far more than just one year ago,” the report said.
Notable exceptions are India, Australia and China, where 82 percent see the current economic situation as good.
Over all, majorities in 18 of the 24 survey countries are generally dissatisfied with the way things are going at home. The big exception is again China, where 86 percent express
satisfaction, up from 83 percent last year.
In the United States, where 70 percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going, pessimism extends beyond the economy to the country’s chief foreign policy challenge: only a
minority of Americans (40 percent) now think efforts to establish a democratic government in Iraq will definitely or probably succeed. In 2006, a majority (54 percent) still
believed that success was likely.
Concern about global warming has increased since last year in 11 of the 20 countries for which trends are available, Pew found.
“When asked which country is ‘hurting the environment the most,’ majorities or pluralities in most countries surveyed cite
the United States,” the Pew report said. “But people are increasingly pointing fingers at China.”
The United States and China are among the 10 countries where majorities do not define global warming as a very serious problem.
The survey of 24,717 people is the seventh major study conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project since 2002.
RPS Aff 132
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

No Renewables Now
Oil, coal and natural gas will continue to dominate

Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

In an early release of its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, EIA's updated analysis reflects the same general trend for renewables:
Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources ... oil, coal, and natural
gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they
did in 2005.13
Significantly, EIA expects base-load fossil fuel generation to continue to have low operating costs compared to current
renewable technologies, making it harder for renewables to compete in state-based electricity markets without some form of
regulatory intervention.14

Investment in energy technology is declining – lack of a federal lead

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

The larger issue, however, is that as a nation we invest less in energy research, development, and deployment than do a few
large biotechnology firms in their own, private R&D budgets. This is unacceptable on many fronts. The least of which is that
we know that investments in energy research pay off at both the national and private sector levels.
In a series of papers (Margolis and Kammen, 1999; Kammen and Nemet, 2005; Nemet and Kammen, 2007) my students and
I have documented a disturbing trend away from investment in energy technology—both by the federal government and the
private sector, which largely follows the federal lead. The U.S. invests about $1 billion less in energy R&D today than it did
a decade ago. This trend is remarkable, first because the levels in the mid-1990s had already been identified as dangerously
low, and second because, as our analysis indicates, the decline is pervasive—across almost every energy technology category,
in both the public and private sectors, and at multiple stages in the innovation process. In each of these areas investment
has been either been stagnant or declining. Moreover, the decline in investment in energy has occurred while overall U.S.
R&D has grown by 6% per year, and federal R&D investments in health and defense have grown by 10 to 15% per year,
respectively.
One of the clearest findings from tracking actual investment histories, is that there is a direct and strong correlation between
investment in innovation and demonstrated changes in performance and cost of technologies available in the market.

The U.S. under invests in clean energy development

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP

Raise Clean Energy Research, Development, and Deployment Spending to Reasonable Levels
The U. S. has under-invested in energy research, development, and deployment for decades (Kammen and Nemet, 2005), and sadly the
FY2008 budget request is no exception. Federal energy research and development investment is today back at pre-OPEC levels – despite a panoply of reasons why energy
dependence and in-security, and climatic impact from our energy economy are dominating local economics, geopolitics, and environmental degradation
At $2.7 billion, the overall energy RD&D FY08 request is $685 million higher than the FY06 appropriated budget. Half of that increased request is accounted for by increases in
fission, and the rest is in moderate increases in funding for biofuels, solar, FutureGen, and $147 million increase for fusion research. However, the
National Renewable
Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) budget is to be cut precisely at a time when concerns over energy security and climate change
are at their highest level, and level of need. The fact that a plan exists to cut assistance to lowincome families by 41% from FY06 levels for weatherization to
improve the energy efficiency of their homes is startling.
RPS Aff 133
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

No Renewables Now
Renewables make up a very small percentage of U.S. generation

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton


(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.
J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

B. Sources of Electricity
Figure 1 shows the remarkably small share of renewables in U.S. generation. n8 Between 1991 and 2005, total power
production grew by 1.95% annually. Figures 2a and 2b show that renewables grew more slowly, falling from 2.21 to 2.15%
of the total. Coal-fired generation increased by 26.6% and despite regulatory concerns over emissions and GHGs, its share of
production fell by only 2% points. No new nuclear plants were opened during the period, but improved operating procedures
kept their share of production nearly constant. Hydropower's share fell as sites available for larger plants grew scarce and
environmental intervenors succeeded in blocking projects. Gas-fired power grew, much of it produced in small and efficient
generators built by competitive producers rather than utilities. Generation fueled by oil was a minor presence at the start and
became less important over the period.
As a group, renewables have made little headway despite more stringent environmental regulations and increased public
concern over fossil-fuel generation. n9 Figure 3 shows generation by type of renewable from 1991 through 2005. Production
from wood and waste biomass remained roughly unchanged, as did output from geothermal plants. Figures 4a and 4b show
that the total of these three sources fell from 95.3% to 78.9%, while solar power maintained its 0.6% share. Had wind
generation not risen rapidly, renewable power would be below 2 percent of today's total. The fact that wind is the only
renewable on a growth trend will have important consequences for a national RPS.
RPS Aff 134
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs Undermines Renewables


The patchwork of conflicting State RPSs is undermining the development of a stable renewable market and driving
up costs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

State Inconsistencies Discourage Investment


“When people understand what rules are made, life just gets better.”
- Respondent #5, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006
If America’s interstate highway system were structured like our renewable energy market, drivers would have to change
engines, tire pressure, and fuel mixture every time they crossed state lines.
None of the existing state RPS mandates are alike. Wisconsin, for example, has set its RPS target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island is shooting for
16 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration count as “renewable”, while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and non-renewable
distributed generation. Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set purchase requirements based on installed capacity, while many other states make it a function of electricity sales. Minnesota
and Iowa have voluntary standards, while Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees.25 States vary in their targets,
definitions of eligible resources, purchase requirements, renewable energy credit (REC) trading schemes, and compliance mechanisms, among other things.
Conflicts over Statutes
Amid this complex morass of regulations, stakeholders and investors must not only grapple with inconsistencies, they are
forced to decipher vague and often contradictory state statutes.26 In Connecticut, for example, the state’s Department of Public Utility Control originally
exempted two of the state’s largest utilities from RPS obligations because the description of “electric suppliers” in the statute was unclear. These exemptions created uncertainty
over whether the statute would be enforced against any utilities at all.27 Hawaii’s standard contained so much “wiggle room” that it was unclear even to its own advocates whether
it applied to most of the state’s utilities.28 Such ambiguity has lead to “wide disagreements among parties in regulatory proceedings” about
how to enforce some state RPS mandates. 29
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Don Furman, a senior VP at PacifiCorp, lamented how “for multi-state utilities, a series of
inconsistent requirements and regulatory frameworks will make planning, building and acquiring generating capacity on a multi-state basis confusing and contradictory.”30
Limits on Distributed Generation (DG)
The current state-by-state approach to RPS is also inhibiting the expansion of distributed generation technologies by forcing
unusually prohibitive operational procedures. Inconsistent tariff structures and interconnection requirements, for example, add complexity (and therefore cost)
to distributed generation projects. In fact, the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric generating and electric distribution companies committed to responsible
environmental stewardship, forecasts that fuel cells and community-scale wind energy projects
are unlikely to play a meaningful role in state RPS
markets until policymakers adopt a more comprehensive and uniform approach.31
Uncertain Policy Duration
The complexity of state-based RPS statutes is compounded by uncertainty over the duration of many state RPS programs.
Stakeholders trying to plan investments in state renewable energy markets are tormented with unknowns. 32 New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, for example, will review
and potentially modify their RPS schemes in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively.
Hawaii’s standard expressly allows for its requirements to be waived if they prove to be “too costly” for retail electric providers and consumers.33 Arizona, New Mexico, and
Maine may terminate their RPS programs entirely. 34
The market disruptions created by complex and often conflicting state RPS mandates are not merely “academic” concerns voiced only by staunch renewable energy advocates. In
comments to the New York State Public Service Commission, Executives from Constellation Energy – a utility serving 1.2 million customers in Baltimore and more than 10,000
commercial and industrial customers in 34 states – complained that many
state RPS programs “unnecessarily burden interstate commerce, raise
the cost of compliance, invite retaliatory discrimination, potentially violate the Commerce Clause, reduce the availability of imports, and
are ‘impractical’ given the inability to track electrons.”35
Risks Increase Costs
When renewable energy policy is predictable and stable, long-term project financing follows.
Potential investors are less likely to assume persistent risks where legislative or regulatory commitments are weak or
constantly changing. Regulatory uncertainty creates substantial direct and opportunity costs for the nation’s renewable energy
market. Ten years ago, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that the uncertainties generated by inconsistent and unpredictable energy policies may
increase the costs of renewable energy projects up to 50 percent compared to the probable costs under stable regulatory environments.36 It is not an exaggeration, therefore, to
suggest that the
instability inherent in a state-based approach to RPS is dramatically distorting private investments in renewable
energy generation nationally and prohibiting the expansion of a robust renewable energy sector in the United States.
A federal mandate is critical to correcting these market distortions and signaling a national commitment to renewable energy
generation. A federal policy would promote a national renewable energy technology sector that contributes to the U.S. economy, weans the nation from foreign and polluting
sources of energy and decreases the real and social costs of electricity for American consumers. // pg. 25-27
RPS Aff 135
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: States Solving Now


Existing State RPS systems have not effectively expanded renewables

Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

I The Seven Deadly Sins of State-Based RPS


A First sin: Failing to diversify fuels
Even though some state RPS programs are decades old (Iowa's Alternative Energy Production law passed in 1985 and Minnesota mandated utilities purchase renewable energy in
1994), state standards have failed to substantially increase the deployment of renewable energy technologies on a national
scale.7 For the past 15 years, non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources have provided around 2 percent of the country's electricity supply.8 Even with the contribution of the
existing 21 state RPS mandates, projections show that this percentage is unlikely to improve considerably.9
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses one of the most rigorous methodological tools to estimate future renewable energy deployment: the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS tracks the geographical differences in regional energy markets at sub-state levels, including census divisions and North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC) sub-regions. NEMS also is used as a benchmark for models employed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Tellus Institute in their
own projections of renewable energy production.
In its 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA used NEMS to estimate the contribution of renewable fuels to U.S. electricity supply given existing state-based RPS mandates.
According to NEMS, electricity generation from biomass is expected to increase from 0.9 percent of total generation in 2004 to 1.7 percent in 2030. Wind is forecast to increase
from 0.4 percent to just 1.1 percent of total generation. Geothermal power is projected to increase from 0.4 percent to 0.9 percent. Grid-connected solar is anticipated to remain at
less than 0.1 percent of total generation.10
Nationally, EIA's projection means that non-hydroelectric
renewable energy deployment is expected to rise to no more than about 3
percent by 2015 and 4 percent by 2030. Of the capacity stimulated by state RPS programs, more than 93 percent is estimated to result from large wind farms.11
When broken down by state, the EIA projects that 3.7GW of central-station renewable energy capacity will be added in Texas, 3.4GW in California, 0.9GW in Nevada, and 0.5GW
in Minnesota. In Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin, small projects
are projected to increase the production of renewable energy by only 100 to 200MW in each state.12

Existing States RPSs won’t effectively expand renewables

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

Taken together, state action on RPS is insufficient in significantly promoting national renewable energy capacity. Despite the
progress made by state RPS, the deployment of renewable resources has stayed relatively the same. Almost 10 years ago, renewable
energy technologies constituted approximately 2 percent of the country's electricity supply (when excluding large hydroelectric facilities). (26) In 2006, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) estimated that non-hydroelectric renewables still provided about 2 percent of America's electricity supply. Even
when all state RPS
are included in projections, EIA estimates that the contribution of renewable resources is unlikely to exceed 3 percent of total
electricity supply by 2017 or 4 percent by 2030. (27)

Inconsistencies in State regulations are inevitable for 3 reasons


- Differences in wealth, knowledge and interest group politics

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

Meanwhile, in the United States, the federal government has set no national target for renewable energy, established no national cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and refused to
create a nationwide trading system for carbon credits. As a result of the administration's unwillingness to take forceful actions commensurate with the nation's leadership and
responsibilities, the country remains unprepared to face the unprecedented energy and environmental challenges that loom in the future.
Prior to the 1970s, the country faced a similar situation. U.S. regulation consisted of a medley of state laws, local ordinances, and
common law nuisance protections that left significant gaps in the scope and duration of environmental protection. However, it was generally believed
that significant inconsistencies were present in state regulation based on their relative differences in wealth, knowledge, and
interest group pressure. A significant disparity also occurred concerning the rate at which states adopted environmental regulation--a disparity influenced by trends in
population growth, the extent that environmental services were perceived to have a value in a state's economy, and the revenue that individual states received from recreational
activities such as hunting and fishing. (3)
RPS Aff 136
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: States Solving Now


Current State policies cause “free-riding” – utilities exploit gaps and build coal power plants in States without
protections

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

In addition, as mentioned above, state-by-state action on climate change is prone to what is known as the "free rider"
phenomenon. For example, utilities operating in a region that includes those states with mandatory emissions regulations and
those without has an extra incentive to build new power plants only in those without. PacifiCorp, a utility serving customers
in the Pacific Northwest, has repeatedly attempted to build coal-fired power plants in Wyoming and Utah--states without
mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets--but not in Oregon (which has mandated a stabilization of greenhouse gas
emissions by 2010) or Washington (which has mandated 1990 levels by 2020). (32) The state-by-state patchwork of climate
change policies, in other words, allows stakeholders to manipulate the existing market to their advantage.

Current State RPSs lower the price of carbon – fueling its use in other States

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

Localized climate action also sends distorted price signals. By lowering demand for carbon-intense products, state standards
reduce the regional (and even global) price for carbon-intense fuels. But in doing so, they provide further incentives for
nearby states without climate regulation to do nothing because of lowered prices. (33) Put another way, states acting on
climate change depress the cost of fossil fuels and other carbon-intense commodities by lowering demand for them and thus
their price. Yet reduced prices encourage overconsumption in areas without carbon caps, decrease the incentive to enact
energy efficiency and conservation measures, and discourage the adoption of alternative fuels for vehicles and renewable
energy technologies.

State climate control policies won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions

Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP

Finally, even the most aggressive climate statutes (aimed at cutting emissions by 2010) will make only a negligible
contribution to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. With the exception of New York and New Jersey (which rank ninth and
seventeenth among states in greenhouse gas emissions), the rest of all of the states with mandatory 2010 greenhouse gas
reduction targets all rank relatively low in terms of their emissions. According to EIA, by 2030, total energy-related carbon
dioxide emissions will equal approximately 8.1 billion metric tons (equating to a 62 percent increase from 1990 levels with
an average increase of 1.2 percent per year). Yet those states that have committed to achieving time-bounded, quantitative
reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions accounted for only around 20 percent of nationwide emissions in 2001. (34)
Even if all states with mandatory 2010 climate plans attained their targets, their policies would result in a reduction of
approximately just 460 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2020--a 6.38 percent reduction compared to EIA's reference
case. The other 36 states do not just offset these gains; the overall growth rate still increases at 1.06 percent every year. As a
result, according to EIA, state-by-state reductions "are nowhere near the magnitude of reductions needed to bring the U.S.
into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol's call for reductions of 5 percent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012--much less
the reductions needed to avert dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (35)
RPS Aff 137
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS Good – Laundry List


A federal RPS is superior to state-led programs – produces a national market to expand renewable, protect the
environment and drive down natural gas prices

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

2. The Goals: The Case for a National RPS


Congressional proponents of the Proposed RPS (and most versions of an RPS) cite several goals, including: reduced
pollution, improved national [*56] security, job creation, and lower consumer prices. n44 Additionally, a national program,
rather than a state-by-state program, is more likely to provide a strong national market, thus leading to more renewable
energy projects. n45
In May 2007, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to more than forty "interested parties" from
varying constituent groups inviting responses to several questions regarding a possible renewable energy portfolio standard.
n46 Not surprisingly, the constituent groups supporting an RPS emphasized these key areas in their responses. n47 One of the
broader descriptions of the potential benefits of a national RPS can be found in the Union of Concerned Scientists' response,
which stated that a national RPS "standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security,
fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and ranch income, tax revenues, technology development, customer choices, and
reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with current
and future environmental regulations." n48
If the claimed benefits are accurate (and, as noted below, there are many who believe they are not), there are several ways in
which these benefits would be achieved. Probably the most obvious would be the potential environmental benefits. n49
Although electricity accounts for less than 3% of U.S. economic activity, "the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power
currently accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury
emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO<2> [*57] emissions." n50 One expert has asserted that if "20 percent of
our electricity in 2020 were to be provided by renewables, then we would be displacing the equivalent of 71 million cars
from the nation's highway." n51 Others have noted that the increased use of renewable energy would reduce harmful
emissions or reduce the cost of compliance with requirements to reduce pollution. n52 "And by reducing the need to extract,
transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural
resources for future generations." n53
From a national security perspective, the primary benefit would come from a reduced dependence on foreign energy supplies,
because renewable resources such as wind, sun, and biomass, tend to come from domestic sources. n54 In the electricity
sector, the most significant source would be reduced need for natural gas, which is increasingly coming (in liquefied form)
n55 from overseas. n56 Enormous amounts of natural gas are used for electric generation, including as much as 90% or more
of new electric generation. n57
[*58] A reduction in the use of natural gas would also, by many accounts, lead to lower prices for consumers. A recent study
by Woods Mackenzie, an energy-industry consultancy, indicated that a 15% national RPS would "drive down" the demand
for, and price of, natural gas and "lower the overall price of power." n58 The company found that regardless of whether a
national RPS is implemented, the "United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next twenty years to replace
aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity." n59 A national RPS would create incentives ensuring,
essentially requiring, that some of that new generation be fueled by renewable sources. This switch, according to the Woods
MacKenzie study, to renewable generation sources would lower fuel costs and reduce fossil fuel consumption, leading to
lower electricity costs, amounting to approximately $100 billion in savings. n60
RPS Aff 138
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables


A national RPS is the only way to promote an efficient transition to renewables

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

V The Profuse Benefits of a National RPS


A closer examination of the evidence suggests that a properly designed national RPS would induce a number of wide ranging
and positive changes in the electric utility sector: lower levelized costs of electricity resulting in cheaper bills to consumers; a
depression of natural gas prices; a more distributed, modular, and efficient transmission and distribution grid; widely
abundant fuel available in every state; drastically lower levels of pollution and emissions; and a host of other social benefits.
For instance, technological improvements in thermal efficiency (the amount of raw energy converted to electricity),
reductions in manufacturing cost, improved architectural designs, refined installation techniques, and better construction
methods have coalesced to substantially reduce the cost of renewable energy over the past 30 years.34 Photovoltaic electrical
systems cost more than $60 per watt in 1976, but cost only around $3 per watt in 2004-a decline of 95 percent.35 In 2005, the
California Energy Commission (CEC) estimated that the average levelized cost (the total cost over the life of a generator
divided by the numbers of kilowatt hours produced) of wind energy for the state was 3.5 cents per kWh, less than one-eighth
the 1980s average price of 39 cents per kWh.36 A similar study conducted by the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy
Research concluded that renewable generators fueled by wind and landfill gases offered the cheapest forms of electricity-2.8
and 3.0 cents per kWh, respectively-when compared to all other generators including advanced coal, natural gas, and nuclear
plants.37
Indeed, while every report is laden with its own assumptions, in 2001 the EIA estimated that a national RPS requiring 20
percent of renewable supply by 2020 would save consumers $580 million (in 1999 dollars); and a report by the Union of
Concerned Scientists found that average electricity prices would likely decline between 13 and 17 percent under five different
national RPS proposals.38
Given the mounting external costs associated with fossil fuel, utilities and system operators have come to rely on "cleaner"
natural gas combined cycle generators because they are believed to be cheaper and faster to build than conventional coal
plants. The result of this trend has been the addition of over 150 GW of gas-fired power generation between 1999 and 2004.
The resulting surge in demand for natural gas comes at a time when domestic natural gas production has begun to plateau,
driving prices skyward.39,40 To cite two examples, the price of natural gas jumped from $0.62 per million cubic feet (mcf) in
1998 to $1.45 per mcf in 2001, and spiked again from around $2.10 per mcf in 2002 to more than $14 per mcf near the end of
2005.
Deployment of renewable energy technologies can reduce natural gas demand and thus put downward pressure on natural gas
prices. A greater reliance on renewable resources would hedge against the price volatilities of natural gas by displacing gas-
fired generators and provide wiggle room in a very tight natural gas market. A study undertaken by the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory found that increasing the amount of deployed renewable resources by only a small amount could depress
wellhead natural gas prices between 0.8 and 2.0 percent. These numbers may not sound like much, but if renewable
generation was implemented more widely, the study noted the net present value of natural gas savings could be as high as $74
billion between 2003 and 2020.41
Renewables could also help displace costly liquefied natural gas-fired "peaking" facilities that come online only during times
of heavy demand. Distributed renewable resources offer policymakers a peak demand reduction strategy since,
surreptitiously, many renewable sources-such as solar panels, for example-generate the most electricity at precisely the time
demand is greatest.
When distributed, renewable resources can operate more efficiently than centralized fossil fuel generators since they tend to
possess greater modularity, and can be installed in smaller increments with quicker construction times that enable forecasters
to more accurately match projected supply and demand. Moreover, distributed generators, by producing power closer to the
consumer, help avoid transmission losses and displace electricity normally produced by a large coal- or natural-gas-fired
turbine, backed up by a spinning reserve, and delivered through the power grid to the same location. And, lastly, because
distributed technologies can be produced at smaller scale, they can be located almost anywhere and used for a variety of
applications, enhancing the performance of centralized plants, distribution sub-stations, and transmission infrastructure.42
RPS Aff 139
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables


National RPS will improve the efficiency of renewables and reduce their costs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

National RPS Improves the Efficiency of Renewables


A capacity factor is the ratio of a generating facilities’ actual output over time compared to its theoretical output if it were
operating at maximum efficiency. In 2000, the EIA estimated that the average capacity factor for all power plants in the U.S.
was approximately 55 percent.159 (That is, over a long period of time, an average power plant actually contributes to the
electricity grid only 55 percent of its theoretical maximum output.) Nuclear and hydroelectric generators have boasted the
highest capacity factors, occasionally exceeding 90 percent. Coal ranks near the middle, with a capacity factor of around 60
percent.160 Less reliable natural gas generators have much lower capacity factors of around 29 percent. (This low percentage
is, in part, because gas-fired unites are generally used as “peaking” units).
Citing capacity factors for technologies that have been around for decades obscures the historical fact that nuclear, hydro, and
other conventional generators did not start out with such high capacity factors. Historically, all forms of electricity generation
have followed the same general trend: the more the technologies get deployed, the higher their capacity factor and the lower
their costs. When coal and steam boilers were generating just a few GW of electricity in the early 1930s, they had capacity
factors in the low 20s. But by 1997, when the deployment of coal-fired units reached thousands of GWs of capacity, their
capacity factor had jumped to 61 percent.161
The relative maturity of a technology does not appear to affect the tendency for capacity factors to improve the more the
technology is deployed. System operators and utilities, for example, have announced plans to build more than 150 coal-
burning electricity plants in 42 states (representing 85 GW of capacity) by 2025. During the same period, the National Energy
Technology Laboratory expects the capacity factor for coal generators to grow to above 80 percent.162
Nuclear reactors also prove the concept. The World Nuclear Association notes that nuclear generators had a capacity factor of
around 10 percent when just 22 GW were deployed. Yet their capacity factor rose to 30 percent with the deployment of 53
GW and close to 90 percent once installed capacity reached 97 GW. 163 // pg. 69-70

A Federal RPS would spur job growth and cause the most effective transition to renewables

Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN
ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis
academic., lexis academic.]

New power facilities also mean new jobs. The Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA"), in an assessment of how it would meet a
10% federal RPS by 2020, indicates it would need to generate a total of 19.7 billion kilowatt-hours from renewables.343 Of
that total, approximately 2.3 billion kilowatt-hours would come from wind power and 10.9 billion from biomass. With the inclusion
of solar, hydro-power, landfill gas, and wastewater gas, the total becomes 15.25 billion kilowatt-hours generated within the TVA's boundaries.344 To make up the difference, 4.45
billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy credits would have to be purchased.345 The
generation of that much renewable energy by the TVA is
projected to create almost 45,000 new jobs, mostly in rural areas of the American Southeast.346 Per 1,000 megawatt-hours of renewable
energy produced, 1.09 jobs are created on the "operating" side, whereas 1.86 new jobs are created on the investment side, with more than 3,000 jobs attributed to solar technologies
and more than 23,000 jobs for wind technologies throughout North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and Mississippi.347>>
Though the RPS shifts the demand curve vis-à-vis electricity retailers by artificially setting a market floor for what they have to sell,348 it naturally boosts supply for end-use
consumers.349 This effect is so significant that the policy could easily be deemed primarily supply-side.350 The unusual nature of the potential impact of the RPS is that
depending on how it is structured, both the demand curve (electricity delivered to users) and the supply curve (renewable power project construction and electricity production) can
be shifted.351 The policy question going forward asks how the RPS can be structured to maximize both the necessary commercial benefits to the renewable energy industry and
still ensure mitigation of the enormous costs to society attributable to fossil fuels.352 The
best organ to ensure the equitable distribution of renewable
power while most effectively meeting the needs of the emerging renewable power industry is Congress.353 Despite several
attempts to do so, the federal government has yet to implement such a standard.354
RPS Aff 140
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables


A national RPS solves renewable transition most effectively

Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN
ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis
academic., lexis academic.]

The RPS is a tool that can act directly on any or all of the following market entities: the power producer, retailer, or
consumer.455 The aim is to promote renewable energy and thereby in a once-removed fashion enable the growth of the
business of renewable power production while allowing for reductions in fossil fuel use and all that entails.456 If renewables
become more prevalent, costs might go down, the renewables industry could take off, the environment might improve, or
health concerns could dissipate, et cetera.457 In short, the RPS is a catch-all remedy that is increasingly seen as an energy
policy panacea.
Given that nearly half the states have adopted some form of a portfolio standard, it is not surprising that speculation exists
regarding the eventuality and design of a national RPS.459 The AWEA is one such organization seeking the enactment of a
national RPS.460 Their proposal, not surprisingly, is perfectly suited for the long-term commercial health and growth of
renewable power producers.461 Using the Clean Air Act's sulfur dioxide regulation as a model,462 the AWEA sets forth a
plan that, while light on specific figures, completely encapsulates the industry perspective in its underlying enforcement
mechanism.463
If a national RPS is indeed on the horizon, a two-tiered approach that satisfactorily accounts for both the industry and social
perspectives is warranted.464 The AWEA proposal falls short from an industry standpoint in that it fails to appropriately set
the means by which the standard comes to fruition. It falls short from the social standpoint in that it fails to account for the
likely concentration of the burdens of fossil fuels in specific geographic areas.465 An RPS-especially a national one-in
addition to the fundamental structure of any quota466 must set bars that are realistically attainable but ambitious enough to
change the energy industry in the desired way.467 To comprehensively meet the concerns of both perspectives, the national
RPS approach will have to account for market forces,468 federalism,469 and hidden energy costs.470 If done correctly, a
balance can be wrought between each of these.
The Industry RPS must be managed as a federal regulatory scheme.471 Congress, after setting a production standard, would
have to pass an enabling statute that allows an agency (likely the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to certify and
administer "renewable energy credits."472 These credits represent one kilowatt hour of electricity each, and for each power
generator and distributor, the RPS determines how many credits they must hold at the end of each fiscal year.473 If the RPS
for a given year is 10%, each power retailer must have renewable source energy account for 10% of their total kilowatt hour
sales for the year. 474 The credits are proof of these sales.475 The credits would be tradable between industry actors as a
parallel "commodity" to the electricity itself.476 The credits, while not per se indicative of sales, instead signify that
renewable energy has been supported in the amount of one kilowatt hour per credit.477 Thus, a non-utility-owned wind farm
(a power generator as opposed to a power retailer)478 in North Dakota that produces and sells only renewable energy would
have 90% ofthat year's credits to sell on the open market to power producers and distributors in any other part of the country
that do not sell enough on their own.479
Credits would not be allowed to be carried over from year to year, and the market price would depend on how ambitious the
annual increase in the RPS would be.480 In this way, every power retailer (like a utility) would have to determine whether it
would be more expensive to produce their own renewable energy or directly subsidize the production of it elsewhere.481
Industry actors that fail to meet the standard would be subjected to steep fines that substantially outpace the fair market value
of the energy credit, making the RPS effectively self-enforcing.482 Another advantage is that unlike direct government
subsidies, no public funding is necessary.483 Furthermore, it is effective in both regulated and competitive wholesale energy
markets.484 The overseeing agency would merely be required to certify the annual ownership of the credits themselves,
administer penalties for noncompliance, and adjudicate disputes over credit transactions.485 The formula for setting fine
rates would be set statutorily along with the RPS to avoid costly and time-consuming bureaucratic rule-making procedures.
The AWEA also notes that in an energy credit-based RPS scheme, the market value of credits will ultimately determine when
the standard "self-sunsets."486 Once a credit becomes worthless, the RPS will have accomplished its goal for at least the
year.487 To ensure long-term growth of the renewable energy industry, the RPS will have to start high enough, accelerate fast
enough, over a long enough period of time to set off the diminishing rate of return for the credits.
RPS Aff 141
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewables Good – Laundry List


Renewables solves innovation, job shortage, deforestation, and developing countries’ economies – decentralization is
key

Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology
and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo
(Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG)

The rapidly growing renewable energy industries and service sectors in many countries show clear evidence that the
systematic promotion of such new technologies offers great opportunities for innovation, for the development of energy
markets with locally or regionally oriented value chains and thereby, for the creation of new jobs with very different
qualification requirements. While the development and deployment of new state-of-the art renewable energy technologies,
such as wind or photovoltaic energy, require highly skilled, knowledge intensive work-forces in industrialized countries,
developing countries can, for instance, benefit economically from an increased use of improved biomass-based energy
generation, both in terms of better availability of energy for productive use and through the provision of energy services as
such. Examples are the widespread use of improved wood and charcoal cooking stoves in Kenya and other African countries
as well as the production of ethanol – an excellent substitute of gasoline in Otto-cycle engines – from sugarcane in Brazil.
Generally speaking, renewable energies are important for local employment and income generation which results from
manufacturing, project development, servicing and in the case of biomass, rural jobs for the biomass production.
Usually renewable energy devices are decentralized, modular in size and have low operating costs in addition of involving
short construction times which give much greater flexibility in energy planning and investment. The Table 3 provides an idea
of the number of jobs per unit of energy generated from different sources.
These numbers were obtained from a variety of sources and include jobs involved in operating the generating stations as well
as the jobs involved in producing and maintaining the equipment. Photovoltaic energy is usually generated (and used) in
small modules of 100 watts and the generation of 1 TWh would require typically 10 million modules to be installed and
maintained. This is the reason for the creation of a large number of jobs. Ethanol production involves large plantations of
sugarcane, which explains the number of generated jobs.
The main beneficiaries of the adoption of renewable sources of energy will be the developing countries, where biomass, and
particularly fuelwood, are used widely with very inefficient and wasteful technologies for cooking and heating. In such
countries the modernization of the use of biomass could bring – among others – great benefits, including a reduction in
deforestation.

Increasing renewables increases energy security through diversification.

Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology
and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo
(Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG)

The cost of maintaining energy security in today’s industrialized countries comes at high, but usually hidden, costs that find
expression in military and security spending. The volatile world market prices for conventional energy sources, in particular
oil, pose great risks for large parts of the world’s economic and political stability, with sometimes dramatic effects on energy-
importing developing countries. In this context, renewable energies can help to diversify energy supply and to increase
energy security. It should increase the economic benefits that result from transformations in energy trading patterns.
Additionally, in the mid-and long-term perspective renewable energies prolong the availability of most fossil fuels for the
satisfaction of both energy needs and numerous other non-energy needs.
RPS Aff 142
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewables Good – Laundry List


Enhancing renewables solves poverty, global hunger, patriarchy, education, economic development

Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology
and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo
(Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG)

The enhanced use of renewables is closely linked to poverty reduction and elimination, since energy services can: (a)
improve access to pumped drinking water – clean water and cooked food to reduce hunger (95% of food needs cooking); (b)
reduce the time spent by women and children on basic survival activities (gathering firewood, fetching water, cooking, etc.)
and; (c) provide lighting that permits home study, increases security and enables the use of educational media and
communication in school and reduce deforestation.
More than two billion people cannot access affordable energy services, based on the efficient use of gaseous and liquid fuels,
and electricity and are dependent on gathering fuelwood, fetching water, cooking, etc. This constrains their opportunities for
economic development and improved living standards. Women, the elderly and children suffer disproportionately because of
their relative dependence on traditional fuels and exposure to emissions from cooking which is the main cause of respiratory
diseases. Access to electricity through transmission distribution lines is unlikely to be possible in many parts of the world for
a long time, so access to modern decentralised small-scale energy technologies particularly renewables are an important
element to successful poverty alleviation. The revenues from exported biofuels are another important element to alleviate
poverty in developing countries.

Increasing renewables solves hundreds of thousands of systemic deaths per year, ecosystems, and the ozone levels
because there is no pollution

Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology
and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo
(Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG)

The main pollutants emitted in the combustion of fossil fuels are sulphur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and
suspended particulate matter. Ozone is formed in the troposphere from interaction among hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides and
sunlight. The environmental impacts of a host of energy-linked emissions — including suspended fine particles and
precursors of ozone and acid deposition — contribute to local and regional air pollution and ecosystem degradation. Human
health is threatened by high levels of pollution from fossil fuel combustion. At the local level energy-related emissions from
fossil fuel combustion, including in the transport sector, are major contributors to urban air pollution, which is thought to be
responsible for about hundreds of thousands deaths annually around the world. At the regional level precursors of acid
deposition from fuel combustion can be precipitated thousands of kilometres from their point of origin – often crossing
national boundaries. The resulting acidification is causing significant damage to natural systems, crops, and human-made
structures, and can, over time, alter the composition and function of entire ecosystems. Table 4 shows some of the
consequences of the use of fossil fuels. Needless to say renewables contribute far less to these emissions.
RPS Aff 143
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS Good – National REC Market


A federal RPS will create a national market for RECs

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

A national RPS would create a national market for renewable energy credits (RECs), n8 which are earned by generating
electricity from qualified renewable generators, such as those using wind, solar, and biomass as their energy source. n9
Covered electricity retailers would be required to hold RECs in the specified proportion to the amount of retail energy they
sold. n10 These RECs could be self-generated or purchased from other qualifying renewable generators. n11

Only a federal credit system can promote using renewables

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

Furthermore, we propose that FERC be given the authority to issue national renewable energy certificates (RECs) and
develop a national REC tracking system. Unbundling the renewable nature of generation from the actual electricity generated
provides critical flexibility for regulated utilities and ensures that market forces dictate renewable investment. For mixed-fuel
facilities, we believe that allowing only the electricity generated from qualified renewable sources to count toward the value
of a REC promotes efficient fuel combinations while protecting against fraud. A tracking system would also help certify that
RECs represent actual renewable generation, facilitate the transfer of RECs between holders, and ensure that certificates are
not double-counted.
State RPS mandates (and some voluntary initiatives) have encouraged the development of robust interstate and regional REC
tracking systems.26 For example, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), an operational REC tracking program,
comprises six states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Regional tracking
systems are also under development in the mid-Atlantic and western U.S. By early 2006, the non-profit Center for Resource
Solutions formed the North American Association of Issuing Bodies (NAAIB) to issue recommended "best practices" for
certificate tracking and promote harmonization among the various tracking systems in North America.27
The emergence of the NAAIB suggests that a national REC tracking system may be inevitable. Moreover, just as the federal
government ultimately intervened to regulate interstate electricity transmission,28 such a REC tracking system will likely be
subject to eventual federal oversight. It makes far more sense that such a system be the result of federal design earlier rather
than circumstance later. Transparent and predictable rules established by a democratic body would likely avoid the fits and
starts sure to plague a system that pieces together inconsistent and overlapping regional REC tracking systems.
Early adoption of a uniform REC tracking system would allow both regulators and the regulated community to focus on the
important work of exploring new ways to harness greater amounts of renewable energy, instead of wading through a mire of
constantly evolving trading schemes. For example, some state RPS mandates have created uncertainty over who owns the
RECs that result from power purchases mandated under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).29 Under
section 210 of PURPA, Congress required local utilities to purchase power from co-generators and small, renewable power
producers (known as "qualifying facilities") at a price set by state public utility commissioners. The price was not to exceed
the utility's avoided costs, which the statute defined clumsily as "the cost to the electric utility of the electric energy which,
but for the purchase from such co-generator or small power producer, such utility would generate or purchase from another
source."30
Some PURPA-regulated utilities have argued that the renewable or environmental aspects of renewable generation are
inseparable from the power purchase because they are the reason utilities are mandated to contract for the output in the first
place. Therefore, ownership of the RECs that derive from PURPA-mandated power purchases should transfer to the regulated
facility purchasing the power. Many co-generators and renewable energy producers argue, on the other hand, that state RPS
programs create certificates as commodities unbundled from the electricity produced, so it cannot be argued that ownership
of RECs is automatically transferred with the sale of electricity, mandated or otherwise.

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted


RPS Aff 144
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal RPS Good – National REC Market


In 2003, to answer petitions brought by several PURPA qualifying facilities, FERC declared that avoided cost payments
mandated by PURPA did not convey ownership of the RECs that may result from the renewable attributes of the electricity.31
FERC ruled that it is up to the states to decide who own RECs, but that the avoided cost payments mandated by PURPA pay
only for the capacity produced and do not convey the renewable aspects of its generation. On appeal, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to review the decision, leading to speculation
that future suits may be pursued.
A national RPS program could resolve the issue in a particularly novel way by declaring that regulated utilities own RECs
for renewable energy purchased from PURPA qualifying facilities or net metered generators only if the electricity is
purchased at the retail rate, not the avoided cost. In their crudest form, RECs put a dollar amount on the value that the nation
places in the generation of renewable energy. Their market value is largely dependent on the ability of regulated utilities to
comply with RPS goals. Ideally, a national REC trading system would create a more sophisticated market in which the value
of renewable energy generation is more realistically pegged to the retail value of electricity.
National RECs could further drive the cost of renewable resources down. Brent M. Haddad and Paul Jefferiss suggest that
establishing a national RPS creates both a secondary commodity and a secondary market. That is, under a federal RPS,
utilities would sell their renewable power at a market rate to their customers, but they would also sell their renewable energy
credits nationally to retail suppliers anywhere. Haddad and Jefferiss predict that, after the creation of a national RPS, a
"vibrant market" for renewable energy credits is "likely to arise, driving their cost down, making renewable resource
generators more competitive, and lowering the cost of our national commitment to renewable energy."32
Under the system we have proposed, players in the renewable energy market would have to compare the market value of
RECs with the difference between the retail rate of electricity and the avoided cost as required under PURPA. Renewable
generators would decide whether to sell their energy (along with ownership of the REC) at the retail rate or sell it at avoided
cost (and retain REC ownership). Such a national REC trading program would create downward pressure on the retail market
for electricity as well as providing added economic incentives for energy services companies to invest in their own renewable
capacity.
Regulated utilities that choose to purchase ownership of RECs by paying the retail rate for renewable generation would be
subject to rate fluctuations themselves. If retail prices increase, so would the cost of purchasing renewable energy bundled
with the adherent RECs. Therefore, mandating the option of purchasing REC ownership by paying the retail rate has the
added benefit of increasing the likelihood that the electricity market will benefit ratepayers either by significantly decreasing
the price of electricity (and, as a result, making renewables more cost-competitive) or by ensuring that regulated utilities
invest in substantial new sources of renewable generation.
Lastly, economist David Berry has noted that a national market for renewable energy credits would provide the country with
manifold advantages beyond state RPS programs.
In jurisdictions where retail providers may not own renewable assets, credits enable providers to meet their portfolio
requirements. Credits would give utilities the opportunity to still meet requirements if their supply of renewable energy
unexpectedly falls short due to equipment failure, unexpected increases in demand, etc. RECs would also give utilities time
to determine how best to meet RPS requirements and potentially defer investment decisions.
The gains from trading credits would make renewable energy systems more cost-competitive for suppliers, and could also
minimize transmission costs, since they obviate the need for additional transmission when resources are located near
population centers. Lastly, RECs would allow forms of renewable energy physically unable to be transmitted over the power
grid-like solar thermal systems-to still contribute to meeting RPS targets.33
RPS Aff 145
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RECs = Transition to Renewables


Renewable energy credit borrowing will help fuel the transition to renewable

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Other options exist for those unable to meet the RPS requirement in a given year. That is, retail electric suppliers that are not
able to obtain a sufficient number of RECs are not automatically going to be assessed civil penalties. As a means of
compliance, the Proposed RPS also provides for a "Renewable Energy Credit Borrowing." n179 Under this provision, a retail
electric supplier can submit a compliance plan to the Secretary of Energy demonstrating that sufficient federal RECs would
be earned "within the next 3 calendar years which, when taken into account, will enable the retail electric supplier to meet the
[RPS] requirements ... for calendar year 2012 and the subsequent calendar years involved." n180 Once the plan is approved,
the federal RECs that will be earned under the plan can be applied to meet the RPS requirements each calendar year involved.
n181 Failure to repay any borrowed RECs would subject the retail electric supplier to civil penalties. n182 Oversight and
enforcement of the RECs borrowing program, and any resulting proceedings to assess civil penalties, would also add
administrative burdens.
Most of these burdens appear minimal at the federal and state levels. On the federal level, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) concluded "that transactions associated with the proposed federal permits would have no impact [*73] on the federal
budget." n183 On the state level, the CBO observed that state "regulatory entities would not be allowed to prohibit utilities
from recovering prudent costs associated with meeting the portfolio standard." n184 However, the CBO estimated that the
administrative costs related to that restriction, "if any, would be minimal." n185

Renewable credits expand investment for renewables

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

• Federal REC trading rules create a uniform price for renewable energy credits (RECs)
A national REC trading market would allow generators to sell their RECs at a uniform price to retail suppliers anywhere in
the nation. An expanded REC market generates more investment capital for renewable technologies by guaranteeing a more
stable and predictable rate of return. // pg. 11
RPS Aff 146
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RECs = Transition to Renewables


RPS energy credits creates energy competitiveness that promotes alternative energy production

Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN
ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis
academic., lexis academic.]

D. The Social Perspective RPS: Because the World Does Need Saving
Renewable energy is more than simply a business. For that reason, this Note proposes an end-user-oriented, demand-side
Social RPS to go along with the industry version. Fossil fuels are responsible for millions of dollars in health care costs,503 a
host of environmental and economic catastrophes,504 and even national security vulnerabilities.505 The push for a renewable
portfolio standard given this set of concerns necessarily requires a different mode of implementation from the business-
centered standard. The Industry RPS, its tailored execution structure notwithstanding, simply uses energy credits as a means
to act on those who sell power.506 The Social RPS makes use of renewable energy credits as well, but the relevant actors
here are not utilities or independent power producers, but American states. Through the commodification of energy credits,
even in a scheme that backloads implementation, power retailers that lack renewable assets will more often than those
holding such assets choose to purchase credits on the market.507 The risk that the social costs of fossil fuel production will
be increasingly concentrated in certain regions is significant.508 Given that renewable energy sources have geographic
restraints, their production and distribution hubs will initially, in all likelihood, be sited at a greater distance from end-users
than their larger-market-share fossil fuel competitors.509
The Industry RPS only acts on businesses, not individuals and not geographic entities.510 While the aggregate nation-wide
market share of renewables would certainly increase under this standard, its positive social benefits like lower emissions are
not evenly spread out either geographically or throughout the population.511 Therefore, the Social RPS will seek to
accomplish the overall reduction of fossil fuel emissions across the board, not for the sake of the renewable energy industry,
but for the sake of health of its people and environment. To do so, it will have to act on the states by mandating end-use
consumption or purchase rates, rather than production or sales rates. While matters relating to the consumption of energy
could constitutionally be justified as within the realm of the Commerce Clause,512 this Note finds that the most effective
way to avoid legal challenge513 and ensure the successful reduction of fossil fuel externalities is to condition certain federal
funding to the states on the timely compliance with the standard. Just as Congress conditioned a percentage of federal
highway aid for each state on the raising of its drinking age to 21 during the 1980s,514 Congress would declare that it will
release funding packages for highway, education, homeland security, and all other necessary state aid only upon the
certification of the required number of renewable energy credits for that fiscal year.
As with the Industry RPS, the Social version will be implemented using a rate-compounding formula to ensure that state
legislatures have the opportunity to weigh their own options and adjust over time. Certainly, states could seek to carry the
brunt of the purchasing and consumption requirement on themselves through mandating renewable energy use on
government property.515 A state could choose instead to regulate municipal utilities,516 enact their own RPS if they haven't
done so already, or draft incentives for renewable energy producers to move to their state.517 In light of the disparate nature
of states, their relative geographic advantages, and populations, the Social RPS would necessarily have to be a lower
standard, enacted more slowly than its commercially-oriented counterpart. States which already have their own version of an
RPS are not restricted in any way from enforcing it, as long as the state does not drop below the mandates
consumption/purchase floor set by the federal Social RPS.518
Like the Industry RPS, renewable energy credits would be tradable commodities under the Social tier, but in order to
marginalize the trading so as not to defeat the purpose of ameliorating externalities, a substantial percentage surcharge akin to
a sales tax will be added to the purchase price of each credit. A smaller surcharge will be added to the Industry RPS, and the
proceeds of both surcharges will go into the national system benefits fund. The percentage of the fund's non-investment
revenue attributable to these surcharges should be earmarked to fund infrastructural projects like the "wind pipeline" that
improve overall transmission access and energy efficiency so as to broaden the interConnectivity of the national power
grid.519 In so doing, it will help control for output variations while directly encouraging the proliferation of renewable
power.
RPS Aff 147
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***


The upsides of a federal RPS outweigh – success is likely and even one that fails will only lead to minor price increases
and highlight important problems to tackle

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Although this Article has attempted to raise a number of questions that should be resolved, or at least considered, before
imposing a national RPS, an element of uncertainty is bound to remain. There are those who believe that a national RPS is
only a valid option once all scenarios are considered, and, in essence, all potential problems solved. This would, certainly, be
ideal, but it is not feasible. Legislation designed to tackle difficult issues requires making, hopefully, educated decisions, but
is inherently uncertain. In fact, the vast majority of current studies indicate that results from a national RPS would range
between either: (1) a fundamental change in how electricity markets operate; or (2) a moderate price increase for consumers,
with moderate changes to the current system.
Any major policy decision imposes risks; but, despite the histrionics, a national RPS actually appears to present limited
downside, along with significant upside. That is, a national RPS, along the lines of those recently proposed, that fails (or is
moderately successful) would likely lead to minor increases in consumer rates. A major success could reduce natural gas
consumption and lower rates by a significant margin.
The reality is that, without major advances in technologies, a national RPS is likely only to have moderate success. However,
the implementation of an RPS could be the catalyst needed to trigger major advances in technologies. No major policy
change should be implemented without careful consideration. But, while more study and analysis will help the debate, the
potential upside to a national RPS appears to outweigh the downside, at least from a nationwide perspective.
[*77] Risk is a part of all major policy changes, and the downside in this situation is far lower than in many other cases. If
nothing else, a national RPS would further highlight the lack of necessary transmission in the United States. It is likely that
the local nature of renewable energy generation would provide an awareness of infrastructure issues at a more local level than
exists today, and that could help address the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) problem that has long plagued transmission
projects. n209 Although it is unlikely anyone would welcome transmission lines in their backyard, local jobs created from
both renewable generation and transmission projects may make siting more palatable than it has been in the recent past.
Renewable energy has great potential for expanded economic development, improved national security, lower electricity
prices, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And, while a national RPS is one way to help realize this potential, it
should also be clear that for a national RPS to lead to more than moderate change, a comprehensive national energy policy is
necessary.
That is not to say that all questions must be answered before moving forward. In fact, without a national RPS in place, it may
be impossible to determine the potential of renewable energy because even a moderately increased market for renewable
energy could lead to significant technological advancements. All the planning in the world will not necessarily translate into
effectiveness in the marketplace. At some point, an idea must be tested to find out if it will actually work.
Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for
a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of
Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains:
Is Congress?
RPS Aff 148
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***


Even with problems, a national RPS should be adopted to promote renewable – the search for perfection will derail
effective energy policy

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

VI Conclusion
To be fair, a national RPS may not be a panacea to the country's renewable energy problems. Texas-which features the largest
installed capacity of small-scale renewable energy (1,186 MW) in the country-had to implement a wide range of aggressive
policies to achieve their market penetration of renewables. These included measures forcing electric companies to unbundle
transmission, power generation, and retail sales; eliminating the ability for utilities to levy stranded costs and other
discriminatory practices against renewable technologies; forming interconnection rules that did not require extensive pre-
interconnection studies; and mandating the use of real time pricing and net metering.54 California-which has more installed
renewable capacity than any other state-had to remove excessive utility tariffs, increase tax credits for renewable energy
systems, and institute a large consumer awareness program before renewables were widely used.55 In Europe-where
production of wind capacity grew 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, and Austria, Finland, Norway, and Sweden all receive
more than 20 percent of their electricity from renewable resources-aggressive tax incentives and rebates for consumers, rate-
based incentives for utilities such as feed-in tariffs, and environmental taxes on carbon and other pollutants were needed to
promote renewable energy technologies.56
Yet, for too long, the pursuit of a "silver bullet" national renewable energy strategy, embraced by all and burdensome to none,
has kept the capacity of renewable generation ludicrously below its potential. The debate over a national RPS remains
contentious even though many of the issues have been resolved by empirical data or can be avoided by structuring the
program in a smart way. While many states have pursued aggressive strategies to expand renewable energy generation, the
United States lacks a coherent and unified national renewable energy strategy. Current policies offer a ladder for those
wishing to promote renewable energy, but the ladder is without rungs.
The program that we have proposed overcomes many of the objections that have prevented the adoption of similar programs
in the past. It is not a perfect program. But it does not have to be. A national RPS program is not like finding a life partner; it's
okay to settle on less than perfection. Policymakers need not love every aspect of the program to acknowledge that its
adoption would benefit our nation's electricity markets and make substantial progress toward a more coherent and secure
national energy strategy.
RPS Aff 149
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable

Peak load shaving solves intermittent problems

Madrigal, 8 (Alexis, “DOE Report Says More Wind Than Coal Planned for US Grid,” 6-2-2008,
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report.html) // JMP

But it is important to remember that unlike coal, natural, gas, hydro, or nuclear, wind is intermittent. That means that as the
amount of wind on the nation's (passive, outdated) electric grid, it could create problems when demand is high and the wind
isn't blowing. One solution is the peak load shaving provided by companies like Consumer Powerline, which contracts with
large companies to shut down unnecessary facilities when the grid is running close to capacity.

Conventional sources suffer from variability and uncertainty – renewable are comparatively better

Dr. Sovacool, 8 – Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA
(Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, “Renewable
Energy Technologies Just as Reliable as Fossil Fuel Plants,” 1-24-2008,
www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/01/Renewable-Energy-Technologies-Just-as-Reliable-as-Fossil-Fuel-Plants/) // JMP
The "intermittency" of wind and solar is not a reason to reject renewables
All electricity systems, since they must respond (sometimes immediately) to complex interplay of constantly changing supply and demand, are highly variable. They are subject to
unexpected failures and outages, and influenced by a large number of planned and unplanned factors. Renewables are merely
variable in a different way than conventional sources, and in many cases their unique type of variability can help, rather than
hurt, the electric utility system.
While it is certainly true that the output from conventional power plants can be measured quite accurately, virtually every other aspect of planning for and implementing that resource is riddled with uncertainty.
Three types of uncertainty are most common: variance in construction costs, variance in short-term demand forecasts, and
variance in long-term demand forecasts.
First, a large variance exists between the projected costs and actual costs of conventional power plant construction. Experience has shown that there can be project delays and other unforeseen problems that can
lead to considerable cost overruns and even project cancellations. Generally, the larger the project (in terms of installed capacity and thus cost), the longer it takes to complete and the more it is at risk to
unforeseen changes (such as interest rates, labor costs, environmental regulations, etc.). The very fact that large power plants take many years to construct and complete dates are imprecise, adds uncertainty to
the electric system.
Second, once large projects get built, their output is often subject to rapidly changing patterns in consumer demand (and thus required load). Weather events such as sudden thunderstorms can persuade
customers to switch on lights, just as unexpected hours of sunshine can convince them to turn them off. Millions of people are constantly switching on and off equipment—televisions, lights, computers—that
demand instant power.
In the modern, restructured electricity market, system operators typically employ complicated forecasting techniques to minimize such uncertainty. New York, New England, and PJM independent system
operators determine load imbalance on five-minute intervals and use supply curves to dispatch the load-following units participating in the real-time market. System operators employ an automatic generation
control (AGC) system to manage minute-to-minute load imbalances (a service known as “regulation”). Units participating in the AGC are equipped with governors that sense a change in frequency and
automatically adjust output. Intra-hour dispatch every few minutes allows the units providing regulation to return to their nominal set points. To enhance system reliability, AGC units operate at lower power
output than would be dictated by optimal economic dispatch without the requirement to following changing loads. Thus the entire electric utility system is already built to address variability, just of a different
type.
Third, utility resource acquisition decisions are based on forecasts of future customer demand, which can be ridiculously uncertain. We have a hard enough time predicting the weather or political elections;
imagine the difficulty in projecting how an entire industry will be 10 to 20 years down the road. Changes in industry structure and long-term climatic conditions such as drought or unpredicted heat can
particularly impact large hydroelectric and nuclear facilities. Uncertainty in long-term forecasting was widely encountered in the utility industry in the 1970s and 1980s, when excessively high forecasts of
growth in demand for electricity led to overbuilding of electric generating plants and massive electric system cost over-runs in many states. A somewhat infamous example of this was in Washington State,
where the Washington Public Power System (WPPS) began a construction program for as many as seven new nuclear power plants in the early 1970s.
After large cost overruns and collapsing electricity demand growth in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the power system faced financial disaster and all but one of those plants was cancelled, leading to, at the
time, the country’s largest municipal bond default. The entire experience came to be called the “WHOOPS” fiasco (as a play off of the WPPS acronym) and experts have called it “an enduring illustration of the
risk associated with large electric system supply-side investments.”
Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar minimize each of these sources of variability by deploying
technologies that are smaller, more modular, and less capital intense. Classic grid systems are typically “lumpy systems” in the sense that additions to capacity are
made in primarily large lumps (gargantuan power plants, new transmission lines). These plants have long lead times and uncertainties, making planning and construction difficult, especially when the balance of
supply and demand can change rapidly within a short period of time.
renewable energy technologies tend to have a quicker lead time than conventional coal and nuclear plants that can take 5 to 15
In contrast,
Quicker lead times enable a more accurate response to load growth, and minimize the financial risk
years to plan, permit, and construct.
associated with borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars while plants are built. Florida Power and Light says it can take as little as 3-6 months from groundbreaking to commercial operation of new
wind farms.
renewable energy technologies can be produced at smaller scale, they can be located (or situated) almost anywhere, enhancing their ability to
Because
match smaller increments of demand. In the case of unexpected changes, renewable energy technologies limit financial risk and capital exposure. Modular plants can be cancelled
easier, so that stopping a project is not a complete loss (and the portability of most renewable energy systems means value can still be recovered if the technologies would need to be resold as commodities in a
secondary market). Smaller units with shorter lead times reduce the risk of purchasing a technology that becomes obsolete before it is installed, and quick installations can better exploit rapid learning, as many
generations of product development can be compressed into the time it would take to build one giant plant.
Conventional power plants operating on coal, natural gas, and uranium are subject to an immense amount of variability. The
issue, therefore, is not one of variability or intermittency per se, but how such variability and intermittency can best be managed,
predicted, and mitigated. And the advantages of renewables—in addition to being theorized for the past three decades—have been empirically proven in large parts of the world in the past few
years.
RPS Aff 150
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable


Coal plants also have reliability problems

Sargent, 8 (Sara Sargent, “Duke Energy Corp.’s new plant will allow coal to remain king in Indiana but keep emissions low,”
6-3-2008, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=92169) // JMP

“There are times when the wind doesn’t blow and there are times when the sun doesn’t shine and there are times when the
coal plants don’t work when they need maintenance,” Nilles said. “The U.S. Department of Energy said you can meet 20 percent of your energy needs with wind power and
Indiana is at 1 percent. What does Indiana know that the government does not?”
[Note – Bruce Nilles is director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign]

Wind power won’t cause unexpected outages and doesn’t require back-up power sources

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM
No Need for Back-up Power
Researchers also continue to improve upon the technical performance of renewable energy generators every day. New wind
technologies operating at lower wind speeds and employing stronger materials and solar technologies utilizing plastics, nanostructured materials, and thinner modules have
greatly improved efficiency, lowered cost, and enhanced performance.152 In Germany, for instance, the Wind Power Management Systems are so
accurate that they predict hourly wind capacity within a 2 percent margin of error.153 According to the German Energy Agency (DENA), the improved quality of forecasting tools
has eliminated the need for construction of additional conventional power stations to balance increasing amounts of wind power on the nation’s transmission grid.154
Evidence from recent history also proves false the accusation that large wind systems risk power outages from the abrupt loss
of wind. In an analysis of the effects of integrating wind power in New York State, for example, researchers for General Electric analyzed the actual
output records of wind farms in use for over 5 years and found no evidence that wind power output changed so abruptly as to
require contingency plans and back-up generation:
Analysis of historical statewide wind data indicates that loss of wind generation due to abrupt loss of wind is not a credible
contingency. Short-term changes in wind are stochastic (as are short-term changes in load). A review of wind plant data revealed no sudden change in wind output in three
years that would be sufficiently rapid to qualify as a loss-of-generation contingency for the purpose of stability analysis. While the wind can vary rapidly at a given location,
turbines are spread out in a project, and the projects are spread throughout the state, making such an abrupt drop in total output an extremely unlikely event.155
Pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage systems can also be coupled to renewable energy technologies to smooth out intermittency. Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), a large federal utility in the Pacific Northwest, for example, uses its existing 7,000 MW hydroelectric and pumped hydro storage network to store renewable energy.
Starting in 2005, BPA offered a new business service to “soak up” any amount of intermittent renewable output, and sell it as firm output from its hydropower network one week
later.156 Such storage technologies can have greater than 1,000 MW of capacity (depending on location), and operate according to fast response times and relatively low operating
costs. Storage systems like BPA’s are already commercially available and provide a combined 22.1 GW of installed capacity in the U.S.157 // pg. 68-69

RPS will expand intermittent generators and reduce reliance on one source of energy and improve reliability

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM

Technological Diversity
Under a national RPS, intermittent generators are not only likely to be geographically dispersed, but also technologically
dispersed. That is, a national RPS would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources.
Technological dispersion increases system reliability by decreasing dependence on any one intermittent source of energy.
Utilities can harness wind on windy days, sun on sunny days, hydropower on rainy days, etc.
In one study, assessing the impact of renewable technologies at large penetration rates (for example, above 20 percent) in the
United Kingdom, researchers found that “intermittent generation need not compromise electricity system reliability at any
level of penetration foreseeable in Britain over the next 20 years … overall [any negative costs] are much smaller than the
savings in fuel and emissions that renewables can deliver.158 Put simply, the benefits of renewable energy technologies, in
technological diversification, grid stability and system reliability more than outweigh their costs. G. A // pg. 69
RPS Aff 151
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable


Intermittency has been empirically disprove by other countries

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

Problems with intermittent renewable energy technologies long predicted by its detractors have failed to materialize in
Denmark, Spain, and Germany, where aggressive renewable energy programs have been adopted. In these locations, system
operators have overcome intermittence problems in four novel ways: diversifying locations, diversifying technologies,
integrating with existing hydropower and demand response, and predicting wind patterns just as utilities already predict
electricity demand and rainfall.46 Utilities-especially those in the West such as Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas &
Electric-have become much better at integrating renewable resources into their sophisticated integrated resource planning
processes.47 And system operators are becoming much better at day-ahead forecasting for intermittent renewable
technologies like wind, where state-of-the-art forecasting capabilities are already in use throughout California and New
York.48

Varied renewable energy sources solve intermittency.

Lovins et. al, 8 – veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and
Alex Markevich, “Forget Nuclear,” Spring 08, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php, AG)

The sun doesn’t always shine on a given solar panel, nor does the wind always spin a given turbine. Yet if properly firmed,
both windpower, whose global potential is 35 times world electricity use, and solar energy, as much of which falls on the
earth’s surface every ~70 minutes as humankind uses each year, can deliver reliable power without significant cost for
backup or storage. These variable renewable resources become collectively reliable when diversified in type and location and
when integrated with three types of resources: steady renewables (geothermal, small hydro, biomass, etc.), existing fuelled
plants, and customer demand response. Such integration uses weather forecasting to predict the output of variable renewable
resources, just as utilities now forecast demand patterns and hydropower output. In general, keeping power supplies reliable
despite large wind and solar fractions will require less backup or storage capacity than utilities have already bought to
manage big thermal stations’ intermittence. The myth of renewable energy’s unreliability has been debunked both by theory
and by practical experience. For example, three north German states in 2007 got upwards of 30% of their electricity from
windpower-39% in Schleswig-Holstein, whose goal is 100% by 2020.

Intermittency can be solved through a multitude of energy storage methods.

Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology
and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo
(Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG)

One of the problems with renewables is the fact that some of them are intermittent. This is indeed the case for PV, which
requires sunshine, which tends to be erratic in some locations. However geothermal, small hydro and specially biomass do
not suffer from such shortcomings. In the case of PV which is eminently suited for decentralized use in rural remote areas
that cannot be reached by the electricity grid, the use of automobile batteries for storage has proved to be a sensible and
practical solution supplying electricity for lighting in the evenings when it is most needed, and the same applies to other uses
such as radio, TV communications and refrigeration. In the case of wind, the problem of intermittency can be solved by
feeding the electricity generated in large grids, as it is done in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Another solution
is to use electricity to compress air which can be stored and generate electricity when needed.
RPS Aff 152
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: RPS Only Increases Wind Power


A 20% RPS will also significantly expand biomass resources

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK

C. Renewable energy development


Table 2 illustrates that the mix of renewable energy generation under various national RPS scenarios is much more sensitive
to the difference in assumptions between UCS and EIA than the projected consumer benefits. Using UCS assumptions, wind
power provides the majority of renewable energy generation under the 20 percent RPS, with significant contributions also
coming from biomass and geothermal resources. Under this scenario, total U.S. non-hydro renewable power capacity
increases from about 20,000 MW in 2005 to 180,000 MW by 2020.
Using EIA assumptions, however, results in significantly more generation from biomass energy. This is primarily due to the
more pessimistic cost and performance assumptions that EIA uses for wind power. Because wind power is more expensive
under EIA's assumptions, generation from biomass integrated gasification combined cycle plants becomes cost-competitive
more quickly, and is deployed by the model to meet a larger portion of the annual targets. Greater generation from biomass,
which has a higher capacity factor than wind power, also results in less total renewable energy capacity being developed.
Under EIA assumptions, total non-hydro renewable power capacity increases to 150,000 MW by 2020.
The difference in renewable energy generation mix between scenarios that use UCS and EIA assumptions also holds true
under a 10 percent national RPS. The UCS scenario found that wind power would account for the majority of the generation
resulting from the 109,000 MW of renewable eneergy capacity developed by 2020. Biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and
solar resources continue to play important, but lesser roles. Under EIA's 10 percent RPS analysis, biomass actually accounts
for a majority of the renewable energy mix by 2020. Ultimately, the competition between renewable energy resources that is
stimulated by a national RPS will pressure developers to reduce costs and determine the technology winners.
RPS Aff 153
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: No Interconnection / A2: RPS Causes Electricity Restructuring


Interconnection standards have been developed for renewable generators

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

Regarding the technical complexity of renewable energy systems, engineers and operators have made noteworthy progress
overcoming barriers previously thought "insurmountable." The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers are all in the process of
finalizing or have finalized interconnection standards for renewable generators.

A2: RPS Causes Restructuring of Electricity Industry


RPS Won’t Force a Restructuring of the Electricity Industry

UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK

Would we have to restructure the electricity industry in order to adopt an RES?


No. An RES is compatible with both a regulated or restructured industry. California, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
adopted renewable energy requirements outside of restructuring. Nevada and New Mexico adopted small standards during
restructuring, but greatly expanded them later. Seven other states, including Texas, have enacted an RES during restructuring.
RPS Aff 154
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Long Timeframe for Renewables


Most renewable energy investment will occur in the initial phase of an RPS – later in time investments stand to make
less so the incentive is lower

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic)

C. RECs: Where Will They Come From and How to Decide?


Early in the life of a national RPS, the income received from REC sales will provide an incentive for investment in qualifying
renewable technologies even if they involve higher costs than other non-qualifying generating technologies. n117 However,
as the end date for the RPS program grows near (2030 in the EIA study), n118 the lesser amount of time remaining where
REC payments can be expected will reduce the expected benefit of the investment in qualifying renewable generation. n119
As such, any new later-in-time investor will seek higher REC prices to compensate the shorter time horizon under which they
can recoup their investment. n120 This puts retail electricity suppliers in a difficult position under plans such as the Proposed
RPS. As the amount of energy that must come from qualifying renewable resources is increasing, the incentive for building
qualifying generation facilities is decreasing.

Renewables can be deployed quickly

Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP

Recent analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists focused on the costs and environmental impacts of a package of clean
energy polices and how fossil fuel prices and consumer energy bills would be affected. They found that using energy more
efficiently and switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will save consumers money by decreasing energy use.
(41) A whole-economy analysis carried out by the International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths has also shown that
Kyoto-type targets can easily be met, with a net increase of 1 percent in the nation's 2020 GDP, by implementing the right
policies. (42)
One of the greatest advantages that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources offer over new power plants,
transmission lines, and pipelines is the ability to deploy these technologies very quickly. They can be installed--and benefits
can be reaped--immediately. (43) In addition, reductions in [CO.sub.2] emissions will have a "clean cascade" effect on the
economy because many other pollutants are emitted during fossil fuel combustion.
RPS Aff 155
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Meet Targets

A 20% RPS can be implemented—opposing evidence is biased towards electric utilities.

Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp)

Electric utilities are opposing a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) amendment to the Senate Energy Bill, S. 517. The
energy bill currently includes a provision that would require utilities to sell 10% of their electricity from renewable energy
sources by 2020. Senator Jeffords plans to introduce an amendment that will raise that requirement to 20% by 2020. Utilities
say they can't do it, but here is the truth about their false claims.

20% RPS can solve despite current lack of alternative energy.

Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp)

Claim: It is unrealistic to expect utilities to sell 20% of their power from renewable sources in 20 years when we are currently
at only 2%.
Reality: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently completed a study, Renewing Where We Live, which shows that
the U.S. has more than sufficient potential to produce 20% of our electricity from renewable sources. Adopting a 20%
standard will put the U.S. on track to be competitive with other countries-many of which have poorer resources and less land
area-that have adopted similar or more aggressive standards. The United Kingdom plans to increase renewable energy from
2.8% of electricity use today to 10% by 2010, and a recent government report proposed increasing to 20% renewable energy
by 2020.2 Denmark and Finland are planning for 30% renewable energy by 2010. The European Union goal is 22% by 2010.
Regions in Denmark, Spain, and Germany already get nearly 20% of their electricity just from wind turbines.(3)
State governments are also adopting renewable electricity standards. Nevada's standard requires that 15% of its electricity
will come from renewable energy by 2013. Connecticut and Massachusetts both have standards that ramp up to 1% annual
increases in renewable energy. The Western Regional Air Partnership-a coalition comprising the Governors of eight western
states as well as regional Tribal leaders-recommend both state and national level renewable energy standards of 20% by 2015
as a means to reduce regional air pollution.(4)
RPS Aff 156
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions


RPS would not force all states to develop renewables – states won’t be benefited over others

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

The argument that a national RPS would be unfair to some states appears based on the assumption that a 20 percent RPS by
2020 would force each state to build a massive amount of renewable resources. Such thinking is rightfully ridiculous: it
would be akin to forcing Alaska to derive 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, asking Nevada to derive 20 percent
of its resources from hydropower, or attempting to make mayonnaise without milk and eggs. Instead, a national RPS would
only require that the entire nation achieve 20 percent of its supply from renewable resources by 2020. Some states already
possess competitive advantages over others in terms of coal, uranium, and oil. It is unlikely that requirements to harness
renewable resources, which are far more diverse and plentiful, would unduly benefit some states over others.

A national RPS would not detract from some states while benefiting others—the elimination of PUCHA removed the
geographical limitations that would create those conditions

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and
Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means
'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis)

III Promising Possibilities Post-PUCHA


However, the revocation of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)-a law that essentially created the
vertically integrated public utility in which supply, generation, transmission, and distribution services are provided by a
single entity for a specified franchise area-makes the call for a federally mandated RPS all the more timely.14
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a successor statute (PUHCA 2005) that essentially lifted the regulatory safeguards
of the original act and replaced them with cursory oversight authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and, to a lesser extent, state public utility commissioners.
The elimination of PUCHA removed the geographical restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single,
integrated systems.15 Without PUHCA's requirements, an electricity company anywhere in the U.S. can acquire another
electricity company anywhere else, effectively replacing state-based utility franchises with a network of interstate power
players.16 In May 2006, for example, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (with operations in Iowa, Illinois, and South
Dakota) announced that it had purchased PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of ScottishPower servicing customers in Oregon, Utah,
Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and California.17 Constellation Energy also merged with FLP Group in December 2005,
creating the country's largest energy supplier-valued at $28 billion-serving almost 7 million natural gas and electricity
customers throughout Maryland and Florida.18 EPACT further accelerated the nationalization of the industry by establishing
regional advisory bodies to promote interstate planning and cooperation, authorizing a greater number of interstate compacts,
and permitting federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority to join regional transmission entities.19
Thus, the interstate electricity market created in the wake of PUHCA's repeal renders as nonsense the argument that a
national RPS program would benefit some states at the cost of others. Deregulation of the utility holdings sector means that
renewable electricity generated in one state benefits the same utility operating in another. Since a properly designed national
RPS statute would make utilities, not individual states, subject to RPS goals, the burdens and benefits of a national program
are likely to reflect the interstate nature of the emerging utility holdings sector.
Establishing a national RPS could help fix inconsistencies caused by the current patchwork of state RPS mandates.
RPS Aff 157
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions


An RPS will benefit all states – several reasons

Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

C A national RPS benefits all states


In 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists used the NEMS model and EIA's own projections of natural gas prices to assess the economic impact of a 20 percent federal RPS by
2020. UCS found that consumers in the West South Central region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) would save the most ($13.3 billion). Consumers in New England
would save the least (a mere $1.4 billion). Even the states of the East South Central region (Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi) would realize savings of up to $1.6
billion as a result of lower natural gas prices and improved reliability.55
Indeed, every state would benefit from a national RPS because:
* All regions would see lower fossil fuel prices. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease demand on
tight supplies of natural gas and coal.56 Resources for the Future found that a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce its price from up to 2.5 percent in the long
term.57 In Pennsylvania, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and uranium, a study conducted by Black & Veatch determined that a statewide RPS of 10
percent by 2015 would lower both the consumption and price of coal. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would save the state $140 million per
year by 2015.58
* Allregions have renewable resources. Even in the Southeast, where regulated utilities often claim there is a dearth of
available renewable resources, recent research has found commercially significant wind resources offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico and the South Atlantic.59 According to the National Hydro Association, the Southeast also has the potential to add 2,941MW of incremental hydropower at
existing dams, an amount second only to the Northwest/Rocky Mountain region.60 A preliminary study undertaken by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also found
approximately 900MW of energy available in from wind, biomass, solar, and incremental hydroelectric that could be "cost competitively" developed by in the Southeast.61 And a
study by the University of Tennessee suggests that forest and agricultural by-products alone could generate up to 22.2 billion kWh of electricity in TVA's service area at
competitive prices.62
* A national market creates economies of scale that reduce the cost of renewable technologies. The cost of renewable energy, particularly
wind, has consistently decreased as the technology has been deployed.63 In their analysis of federal renewable energy programs, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) projects significant continued improvements in the competitiveness of wind technology over the next decade. EERE forecasts cost reductions due to
discounts for large-volume purchases of materials, parts and components as well as from the "learning effects" that flow from deploying the technology to meet greater cumulative
volume levels.64
* A national REC trading market means that all regions can buy credits at the same price. By providing a common definition of eligible
resources and establishing uniform trading rules, a national RPS would allow renewable generators to sell their RECs to retail suppliers anywhere. Regulated utilities have the
option of investing in their own renewable generation or purchasing RECs from suppliers that are able to generate renewable energy for the most competitive cost.65 Such an
expanded market would drive down the costs of RECs since supply would be pegged to demand organically rather than resulting from conflicting, artificial geographical
restrictions.
* A national market more accurately values renewable generation. NRECA has noted that state-RPS mandates are likely to raise electricity rates where
renewable energy substitutes for lower-cost products, as in Washington State, where a new mandate may force some forms of expensive renewable energy to replace lower-cost
hydropower.66 Not only would a national RPS prevent such a tradeoff, it would allow renewable energy to compete with higher-cost electricity wherever its generation is most
expensive. By
expanding the market, a national RPS would increase competition so that the value of wind energy from farms in
Texas can be determined by its ability to compete with coal-fired power plants in Missouri or nuclear reactors in Georgia.
Price signals would flow unencumbered by the barricades erected by a state-based system.

All states have renewables

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

• All states have renewable resources


The Southeast has the potential to add 2,941 MW of electricity from additions to existing hydroelectric facilities. The
Tennessee Valley Authority has documented nearly 900 MW of “cost competitive” renewable energy from wind, biomass,
solar and incremental hydropower just in TVA’s service territory. And researchers at the University of Georgia have
found commercially significant wind resources off the coast of Georgia and South Carolina.
• A national RPS allows utilities to develop resources anywhere
A national renewable energy market allows regulated utilities to invest in renewable resources wherever their development is
most cost competitive. // pg. 10
RPS Aff 158
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: Southeastern Region Can’t Meet RPS


A national RPS would reduce energy costs in the Southeast too – all regions have sufficient renewable energy

Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK

National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that energy bills would be reduced in every region of
the country, including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential
(Table 1). This is primarily due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that
all regions would see. In addition, all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in
using local resources for generation that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national
credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the same price,
providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators.

Southeastern U.S. can meet an RPS by expanding biomass

CongressNow, 7 (Kelly Shaw, CongressNow Staff, “Experts Cite Biomass' Potential for Southeast to Meet House Renewable
Energy Mandate,” 11-1-2007, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Energy and environment experts at a forum today suggested that one of the major obstacles to meeting a proposed 15 percent
national renewable portfolio standard - namely, the shortage of wind, solar and geothermal resources in the southeastern U.S.
- could be overcome by increasing the use of biomass-based fuels.
The House energy bill (H.R. 3221) now pending in Congress mandates that 15 percent of electricity be generated from
renewable energy by 2020. The Senate has passed a similar bill in three previous years while the House has never passed one.
This year the Senate was not able to pass it, but the House did.
The key argument against a national RPS is the regional inequality for renewable resources. Specifically, southeastern states
claim they don't have enough access to renewable energy.
Leon Lowery, majority staff on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told a forum sponsored by the
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, said that studies show New England actually has lowest renewable resource base
in the country, and many of those states already have an RPS in place.
Dr. Marie Walsh, an adjunct professor of agricultural economics at the University of Tennessee, supported Lowery's
statements. Her studies found that if the Southeast would begin using biomass resources such as switchgrass, they could rely
on more than 110 million tons in 2020.
"The potential in the next decade is extremely high for a dedicated energy crop," Walsh said.
Other studies presented at the hearing from the Energy Information Administration and the American Council for an Energy
Efficiency Economy also supported the argument that the Southeast could use biomass for renewable energy.
RPS Aff 159
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: No Enforcement
RPS is enforceable through civil penalties

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

[*71] For covered utilities that fail to meet the RPS requirements, the enforcement provisions of the Proposed RPS would
require additional review and possible adjudication. The Proposed RPS provides that a retail electric supplier that does not
comply with the RPS requirements "shall be liable for the payment of a civil penalty," n170 meaning that the Department of
Energy would need to review filings from, and assess penalties upon, those failing to report compliance with the national
RPS. n171 This enforcement, while adding an additional administrative burden, is necessary for an effective RPS. State RPS
programs with ineffective or under-enforced penalties have been less effective than those with strong enforcement policies.
n172 In Arizona, for instance, the "lack of enforcement and non-compliance penalties has resulted in significant under-
compliance with the [renewable energy] standards." n173

Existing organizations can help facilitate compliance

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

The implications of a national RPS may not be quite as burdensome as they initially appear, however, because, many states
have RPS programs already, and, as explained below, even those operating in non-RPS states are often served by
organizations, e.g., Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), n112 with the
expertise necessary to facilitate compliance. Nonetheless, it is retail electricity suppliers that would bear the greatest burden
of a nationally imposed RPS, because they would need to participate in facilitating compliance, as well as facilitating the
renewable generation market.

State and federal regulators would enforce a national RPS

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

IV. Impact on State and Federal Regulators


A national RPS would require new or expanded activity by state and federal regulators. The first order of business for state
and federal regulators would be the implementation or expansion of a REC tracking program. Second, state and federal
regulators would each have a role in enforcing the national RPS.
RPS Aff 160
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: No Enforcement / Coordination with State RECs


Administrative burden will be low – oversight and enforcement of RECs can be done electronically

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources,