RES Hangs on Two B's -- Bayh and Brownback

Senate leaders are dashing around tonight and tomorrow to get one last yes vote for the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). The RES would be the first nationwide commitment to a minimum of solar, wind and geothermal energy -- 15% by 2021.

Senators Bayh and Brownback are both on the fence. It actually looks like Brownback is the more likely yea.

Critics of RES say that it will drive up utility prices, but two separate studies conclude that this will not be the case -- in fact, consumers may end up saving money as certain fossil fuels rise in price

If the RES does not get this final vote it will be dropped from the Energy package and a big opportunity will be missed.

Senator Mary Landrieu is voting no and Blanche Lincoln who was a no is now leaning to yes.

UPDATE

RES passed the energy committee - remains part of the energy bill

Comments

[alvdh1]

It's okay Jack. You can respond to my suggestion that RES may not be the best or most efficient path to take in order to encourage the development of solar and wind.

[alvdh1]

The problem with increasing solar and wind contributions to the electric energy mix is not and should not be tied to a renewable energy standard. If congress wants to meet the 15%, it should end the utility rate structure that guarantees a return on investment (ROI) to utilities- which is practiced in 48 states. This structure does not encourage energy conservation because of the ROI encourages new power generation plant construction that need to survive by ever increasing consumption to generate ROI for the utilities.

Instead, regional Independent Service Operators (ISO's), modeled after the California ISO, should be created to purchase power from all producers at a rate that reflects supply and demand at any given moment. This structure would encourage competition among producers. There are currently 7 regional ISO's, but the rest are not modeled after the California ISO. The final addition to the ISO strategy would be to allow residential and business producers to sell their excess capacity into the grid at full retail rates.

Creating ISO's structured to pruchase power from all producers at full retail rates would encourage private investment in solar and wind at the residential and business level thereby by creating ROI's to the most efficient producers of power through competition. Solar and wind production would necessarily be installed where the power is primarily consumed. This will reduce demand on an already strained power grids, reduce transmission losses and level the peak demand curve at large, centralized power stations.

[alvdh1]

In addition, the less efficient coal fired power plants will be phased out by the utilities when they are required to compete on a level playing field. Unfortunately, the politicians trying to pass the RES law know this and are catering to the coal producers and utilities with the hope that the utilities will be placated by at least allowing them to own large wind and solar farms-which is the least efficient and most expensive use of solar and wind.

The small producers of wind and solar would have to be required pay a tariff of 5-10% of their revenues for grid repair and any necessary expansion of the grid. The alternative is feed in tariffs for wind and solar at higher rates than going rate for a given utility. Gainsville Florida implemented this model earlier this year. It provides .32 cents per kilowatt hour of production for 20 years for those who sign up in the first two years - which is more than double the current per kilowatt rate. Unfortunately, the program is capped at 4 megawatts of capacity additions per year.

The ISO model, I believe, is the most efficient strategy to encourage the development of wind and solar power rather than at the extreme local level in Gainsville. But whatever works, works as opposed to the unworkable RES model.

[Jack Hidary - Huffpost Blogger]

I applaud the CA model. per capita energy consumption in CA has remained flat for more than 20 years because in part because the CA system is structured to encourage energy efficiency. the rest of the country is not. RES is complementary to this. this is why CA itself has an RPS - a renewable portfolio standard.