Skip to content

CES as Cap & Trade Light

November 22, 2011

RES, RPS and now CES are being discussed in Congress and various states.

The White Paper on a Clean Energy Standard, published earlier this year by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, makes it clear that there is some support in the Senate for a cap & trade mandate – albeit, only a light version.

The Clean Energy Standard (CES) is essentially the same as a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or a Renewable Energy Standard (RES), except it would cover all 50 states. Some 26 states already have an RPS or RES in various configurations.

RPS, RES and CES all require utilities to generate or procure a minimum percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar, which are more expensive than traditional sources of electricity.

This results in families having to spend more on electricity – conceivably much more. A recent EIA study of increased costs by state showed that electricity costs for families could be as much as 60% higher.

Interestingly, the white paper asks whether some states should be exempt from the CES requirement. This raises a fairness issue in addition to all the other issues.

The white paper asked whether there should be credits, ala cap & trade, and if so, how should they be apportioned?

The Senate Committee issued the white paper and requested public comments, with the chairman, Bingham (D), Arizona, and ranking member Murkowski (R), Alaska, jointly issuing the white paper. So this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue – there are a number of Republicans and many Democrats who claim there is a need for CES or a carbon tax.

The Committee listed six questions for which it was seeking comments.

None of the questions asked whether a CES was needed. This would have been the most important question, but what the Committee was seeking were comments on HOW TO implement a CES, NOT whether it was needed.

Here are the six questions:

  • What should be the threshold [size of the utility] for inclusion in the new program?
  • What resources should qualify as “clean energy”?
  • How should the crediting system and timetables be designed?
  • How will a CES affect the deployment of specific technologies?
  • How should Alternative Compliance Payments, regional costs and consumer protection be addressed?
  • Are there policies that should be considered to complement a CES?

There were sub-questions, but the Committee made it difficult to comment on the sub questions with the admonition that not adhering to the required format would disqualify submissions.

Here’s an interesting sub question posed in the white paper:

  • Should partial credits be given for certain technologies, like efficient natural gas and clean coal? If partial credits are used, on what basis should the percentage of credit be awarded?

Credits, and accounting for them, interjects the same type of bureaucracy that was proposed in the Waxman-Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – cap & trade legislation that passed in the House, but was rejected by the Senate.

The white paper admits that CES would result in families paying more for their electricity, saying:

  • The RES contained in S. 1462 last Congress included cost containment mechanisms such as limiting the electric rate impact … to not more than four percent per retail customer annually.

It would appear as though there is some support for CES (“cap & trade light”) in the Senate, so that the final decision on whether families will pay higher prices for their electricity may rest with the House.

 

The white paper is available at http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/CESWhitePaper.pdf

*  *  *  *  *  *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. Mark permalink
    November 22, 2011 10:05 am

    Morning Donn,

    I woke up this morning to a new post over at Air Vent- //noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ that had a few choice quotes on how the message of global warming, climate change, climate disruption has been developed. You might find the comment about good and bad politics of interest-

    Ashton/co2.org:

    “Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
    this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
    one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most
    valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
    possible.”

    My 6th grade Science teacher wouldn’t approve of this approach to communicating the results of an experiment-

    Warren:

    “The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands
    we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s