DDI 08 1

Ciborowski RPS Neg

Index
Index................................................................................................................................................................................1
1NC States CP Solvency.................................................................................................................................................
States solve......................................................................................................................................................................!
States solve ....................................................................................................................................................................."
States solve......................................................................................................................................................................#
States solve......................................................................................................................................................................$
%&' (ederal RPS )ey ....................................................................................................................................................*
%&' Cant Solve R+C.....................................................................................................................................................8
%&' Cant solve R+C......................................................................................................................................................,
RPS Po-.lar .................................................................................................................................................................10
RPS /i-art.....................................................................................................................................................................11
RPS /i-art.....................................................................................................................................................................1
+nv lobbies like RPS.....................................................................................................................................................1!
/o.c0er 0ates RPS........................................................................................................................................................1"
RPS .n-o-.lar..............................................................................................................................................................1#
RPS 1n-o-.lar.............................................................................................................................................................1$
Plan .n-o-.lar2 Coal lobby..........................................................................................................................................1*
RPS Inevitable a3ter t0e election...................................................................................................................................18
4ba5a does RPS ..........................................................................................................................................................1,
6cCain does RPS.........................................................................................................................................................0
Clean Coal &radeo33 link...............................................................................................................................................1
Clean Coal &radeo33 7ink.............................................................................................................................................
+nergy Price 7ink.........................................................................................................................................................!
+nergy Price 7ink........................................................................................................................................................."
Co5-etitiveness 3rontline ............................................................................................................................................#
8obs t.rn +xt..................................................................................................................................................................*
RPS 9.rts Co5-etitiveness..........................................................................................................................................8
RPS Doesnt solve co5-etitiveness..............................................................................................................................,
:ar5ing (rontline........................................................................................................................................................!0
C0ina o33sets gains .......................................................................................................................................................!1
C0ina and India o33set gains..........................................................................................................................................!
;rid (ronline.................................................................................................................................................................!"
States solve /lacko.ts...................................................................................................................................................!#
No co5-liance..............................................................................................................................................................!$
RPS Doesnt 0el- t0e environ5ent...............................................................................................................................!*
RPS Doesnt 0el- t0e environ5ent...............................................................................................................................!8
DDI 08 2
Ciborowski RPS Neg
1NC States CP Solvency
States empirically solve RPS better than the national government because they can customize the RPS
Kraneburg 2!
<Roger )ranenb.rg= +dison +lectric Instit.te= >7egal ? Reg.latory' 4ne2si@e RPS does not 3it allA= 8an 008
0tt-'BB3indarticles.co5B-BarticlesB5iCDa#!,BisC00801BaiCn1!011*E FCiborowskiG
States are moving "or#ard #ith their o#n programs to promote rene#able energy sources$ %s o3
Se-te5ber 00*= " states and t0e District o3 Col.5bia 0ad establis0ed an RPS. (o.r ot0er states 0ad
nonbinding goals 3or ado-ting renewables= and "8 states now s.--ort -rogra5s t0at o33er cons.5ers
incentives= grants= loans= or rebates to .se renewable energy reso.rces. %ach state&s RPS plan includes
care"ully considered timetables and targets based upon its o#n uni'ue circumstances and available
energy sources$ ( "ederal RPS that imposes di""erent targets and timetables could undercut or
preempt those e""orts$ )his #ould create uncertainty and drive up the cost o" meeting rene#able
mandates even "urther "or electricity suppliers and consumers in those states$ %ven among states that
have an RPS* all have chosen to add energy sources uni'ue to their areas* such as geothermal po#er*
#hich are not included in the broad+s#eeping "ederal RPS proposals$ 6any state -rogra5s also incl.de
tec0nologies s.c0 as 3.el cells= as well as alternative 5eans o3 co5-liance s.c0 as energy2e33iciency
-rogra5s= w0ic0 are not recogni@ed in t0e 3ederal -lans.
DDI 08 ,
Ciborowski RPS Neg
States solve
States have empirically solved RPS
Ric-erson et al$ 2!
<:ilson Rickerson= (lorian /enn0old= 8a5es /radb.ry= >(eed2in &ari33s and Renewable +nergy in t0e 1S% H a
Policy 1-dateA= 6ay 008= 0tt-'BBwww.eesi.orgBbrie3ingsB008B0$1808C0boellCre-B(eed2inI0&ari33sI0and
I0RenewableI0+nergyI0inI0t0eI01S%I02I0aI0PolicyI01-date.-d3E FCiborowskiG
.uring the past decade* there has been remar-able progress in rene#able energy policy develo-5ent in
t0e 1S= particularly at the state level$ %s can be seen in 3ig.re 1 below= there are currently 2/ states #ith
mandatory rene#able port"olio standards <RPSE in the 0nited States* and another six states have
established non+binding rene#able energy goals$ %lt0o.g0 it is -roJected t0at RPS -olicies will reD.ire t0e
develo-5ent o3 over $0 gigawatts o3 renewable so.rces by 0#= t0is will only acco.nt 3or 1#I o3 -roJected
electricity de5and growt0 in t0at year <:iser and /arbose= 008E.
DDI 08 1
Ciborowski RPS Neg
States solve
States have had a long success"ul policy o" 2eed+ins
.avenport 23
<Coral Daven-ort= CK Sta33= 6ay 00*= >Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=
0tt-'BBwww.cD-olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens0eets200000#1,*"*E FCiborowskiG

)he 4hite 5ouse contends that no national standard is needed* and that states can create their o#n
rene#able regulations$ 4n :ednesday= an +nergy De-art5ent s-okeswo5an= 8.lie R.ggiero= wrote in an e2
5ail= >)raditionally* #e have opposed a national rene#able port"olio standard due to the "act that each
state has very di""erent rene#able resources and can utilize rene#able energy in di""erent #ays$ ( one+
size+"its+all approach #ill not allo# us to best maximize each state6s resources$7
DDI 08 8
Ciborowski RPS Neg
States solve
States can implement RPS better than the "ederal government
2ershee 2!
<8os0.a = +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= %ssistant Pro3essor o3 7aw at t0e 1niversity o3 Nort0 Dakota Sc0ool o3 7aw=
>C0anging Reso.rces= C0anging 6arket' &0e I5-act o3 a National Renewable Port3olio Standard on t0e 1.S.
+nergy Ind.stryAE FCiborowskiG
(inally= many opponents o" a national RPS argue that it is unnecessary n8! to have a national plan
because state and regional initiatives are already handling the issue in regions #here it is appropriate
and the states* individually or regionally* are better situated to implement plans that account "or
regional di""erences$ n8" (or exa5-le= in t0e case o3 t0e Pro-osed RPS= a ma9or complaint is that a :one+
size+"its+all 2ederal mandate does not ta-e into account the speci"ic energy and economic needs o"
individual States by reD.iring t0at 1# -ercent o3 retail electricity sales be generated 3ro5 s-eci3ic renewable
reso.rces w0ic0 are not -revalentN in all regions. n8# %lt0o.g0 t0ere are arg.ably bene3its t0at a national
-lan can ac0ieve t0at individ.al state -lans cannot= n8$ as disc.ssed in Part II./= 5any state -lans are already
well establis0ed and e33ective.
DDI 08 /
Ciborowski RPS Neg
States solve
Individual states prove the Counterplan solves
5odge 23
<Nick= >Renewable Port3olio Standard 9owOs #I So.nd to Po.LA 00*= sta33 writer=
www.greenc0i-stocks.co5BarticlesBrenewable2-ort3olio2standardB18*E FCiborowskiG
( rene#able port"olio standard <RPSE is a policy t0at 5andates a certain -ercentage o3 -rod.ced electricity
co5e 3ro5 renewable reso.rces. &0e energy bill c.rrently being debated in Congress wo.ld ens.re t0at
.tilities generate 1#I o3 t0eir electricity renewably by 00. %nd w0ile itOs .nclear w0et0er or not t0at
-rovision wo.ld 5ake it into t0e 3inal version o3 t0e bill22President /.s0 0as indicated 0e will veto it anyway
i3 it does22some states have already adopted such a measure$ In 3act= certain states 0ave ado-ted -olicies
t0at dwar3 t0e 5odest one ca.sing so 5.c0 tension in t0e Senate. Cali"ornia* w0ere IO5 c.rrently attending
t0e greenQc0ange ;lobal 6arket-lace Con3erence= 0as an RPS ensuring that 2; o" its energy comes
"rom rene#ables by 21$ &0at= co.-led wit0 ot0er green initiatives= 5eans t0at Cali3ornia will 0ave
red.ced t0eir statewide e5issions 1*I 3ro5 1,,0 levels by 010. &o -.t t0at in -ers-ective= co.ntries t0at
signed on to )yoto 0ave to red.ce t0eir e5issions a collective average o3 #I 3ro5 1,,0 levels by 01. %nd
New 6exico will get 0I o3 its energy t0e sa5e way by 00. &0at state is 0o5e to ;overnor /ill
Ric0ardson= one o3 t0e 5ost o.ts-oken -residential candidates w0en it co5es to t0e energy iss.e.
In 0is keynote address at t0e con3erence yesterday= 0e called t0e c.rrent energy bill Ns0a5e3.l and -at0eticN=
arg.ing t0at 5.c0 5ore needs to be done by way o3 ado-ting renewable energy tec0nologies. 9e added=
N(lirting wit0 R100 oil isnOt 3lirting at all. ItOs a serio.s relations0i-22an a33air.N %nd nearly N1B! o3 t0e trade
de3icit goes to -ay 3or R100 oil.N /.t I digress. %ven #ithout a national plan+though it #ould be nice+2!
states and the .istrict o" Columbia have already instituted some "orm o" RPS <t0ree o3 t0ose states 0ave
vol.ntary targets= w0atever t0at 5eansE. )hose states ma-e up over hal" o" the 0S population and
account "or #ell over hal" o" the domestic electricity sales$ So yo. can see w0ere t0is iss.e is 0eaded.
DDI 08 3
Ciborowski RPS Neg
()< 2ederal RPS Key
Strict compliance -ills "lexibility -illing solvency on a national level+ only states solve
Ralls 2/
<6ary %nn= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >Congress ;ot it Rig0t' &0eres No Need to 6andate Renewable Port3olio
Standards=A 7ex.sE FCiborowskiG
Congressional e""orts to impose a mandated RPS contained little opportunity "or local variances* or "or
the "lexibility or reconsideration that are essential components in "urthering rene#able goals w0ile
5eeting t0e co.ntryOs -ower s.--ly needs in a cost2e33ective and reliable 5anner. %s disc.ssed s.-ra at Part
II= t0e debates s.rro.nding S. %5dt. *,1 0ig0lig0ted t0is s0ortco5ing in t0at RPS -ro-osal. (ort.nately= t0e
a5end5ents Congress enacted to &itle I o3 P1RP% res-ecting 3.el diversity did not s.33er 3ro5 t0e sa5e
-roble5.8 (lexibility 5eans t0at ele5ents o3 a renewable -rogra5 can be revised i3 necessary. Renewable
-rogra5s s0o.ld be designed to be 3lexible in order to balance conservation and environ5ental bene3its
against associated costs and reliability concerns$ 2lexibility is important because programs o"tentimes
need to be revised to maintain this balance and o""er #or-able solutions "or consumers$ % RPS or any
renewable -rogra5 s0o.ld -ro5ote energy e33iciency and conservation in t0e context o3 obtaining a33ordable
and reliable -ower. (lexibility at t0e state= local= and .tility levels is essential in establis0ing RPSs or
renewable -rogra5s t0at 3oster t0ese sa5e goals. )hose #ho are implementing the programs must be able
to revie# or reconsider elements as a means o" "ul"illing the purpose o" rene#ables #hile sa"eguarding
the need "or sa"e* reliable* and a""ordable po#er$ Rene#able advocates have been urging "lexibility in
designing rene#able programs "or years$
DDI 08 !
Ciborowski RPS Neg
()< Can6t Solve R%C
State programs are more e""icient at R%C
Ralls 2/
<6ary %nn= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >Congress ;ot it Rig0t' &0eres No Need to 6andate Renewable Port3olio
Standards=A 7ex.sE FCiborowskiG
.uring the consideration o" "ederal energy legislation* more and more states* electric utilities* and local
9urisdictions established RPSs* rene#able goals or other programs* any o" #hich include R%Cs that in some
instances can be traded on an interstate basis$ 7ikewise= regional consorti.5s are s.--orting renewable e33orts and
goals. Iowa enacted t0e 3irst renewable -rogra5 back in 1,8!= 3ollowed by 6innesota in 1,," and %ri@ona in 1,,$."$ C.rrently= t0ere are
twenty2eig0t renewable -rogra5s in -lace in t0e 1nited States' twenty2two states and t0e District o3 Col.5bia 0ave enacted or i5-le5ented a
RPS or renewable goal -rogra5 <o3 t0ese= 6innesota 0as two' a renewable goal 3or electric .tilities ot0er t0an Qcel +nergy= and a wind and
bio5ass 5andate 3or QcelES (ort Collins= Colorado= Col.5bia= 6isso.ri= and %.stin= &exas 0ave renewable -rogra5sS and a .tility= 8acksonville
+lectric %.t0ority in (lorida= 0as a -rogra5."* Sectors o3 t0e ind.stry to w0ic0 t0ese -rogra5s a--ly range 3ro5 t0e RPSs o3 Delaware and
:isconsin <w0ic0 a--ly to all .tilities and retail s.--liers= incl.ding 5.nici-als and electric coo-erativesE= to NevadaOs RPS 3or investor2owned
.tilities <I41sE."8 Standards= 5eas.red in ter5s o3 -ercentages or 5egawatts <6:sE o3 renewable -ower generated= -.rc0ased or acD.ired via
R+Cs= are all over t0e 5a-. (or exa5-le= 6aryland reD.ires *.#I o3 retail sales by 01,S Iowa reD.ires its .tilities ann.ally to contract 3or a
co5bined 10# 6:s o3 renewable energyS and Connectic.t reD.ires 10I retail sales by 010.",
6any o3 t0ese -rogra5s 0ave been in -lace long eno.g0 3or t0e states or ot0er i5-le5enting entities to ga.ge t0eir e33icacy= and to re3ine or even
restr.ct.re t0e -rogra5s i3 necessary to take into acco.nt evolving state or local 3actors. &0is is t0e 3lexibility 3actor t0at is essential in designing
and o-erating any renewable -rogra5= as disc.ssed in3ra at Part IT./ to Part IT.(. %ccordingly= 5any -rogra5s 0ave been a5ended to reD.ire or
reco55end 0ig0er standards t0an t0ose originally establis0ed. Cali3ornia= already considered a sort o3 J.ggerna.t 3or renewable iss.es= a--ears to
be in t0e 3inal stages o3 gaining a--roval 3or accelerating its RPS 3ro5 0I o3 retail sales by retail sellers by 010 to !!I by t0e end o3 00.#0
7ikewise= t0e %ri@ona Cor-oration Co55ission <%CCE= on 6arc0 1"= 00$= iss.ed a Notice o3 Pro-osed R.le5aking to increase t0e standard 3or
a .tilityOs renewable -ort3olio 3ro5 1.1I in 00*201 to 1#I by 0#= wit0 !0I o3 renewables co5ing 3ro5 D; reso.rces.#1 :isconsin
recently revisited its 1,,, standard w0en t0e :isconsin State 7egislat.re enacted S/ "#,= .nder w0ic0 t0e statewide renewable goal 3or retail
sales increased 3ro5 .I by 01 to 10I by t0e end o3 01#.# New 8ersey is giving Cali3ornia a r.n 3or its 5oney 3or t0e 5ost aggressive
RPS. In %-ril 00$= t0e New 8ersey /oard o3 P.blic 1tilities signi3icantly increased= based on classes or tiers o3 renewable energy= t0e standard
to .#I by 01.#! :0ile it is di33ic.lt to 5eas.re t0e c.5.lative renewable energy 3ro5 all o3 t0ese -rogra5s= one st.dy -roJected t0at
co5-liance wit0 RPS and renewable goals wo.ld res.lt in an increase 3ro5 ten gigawatts <;:sE in 00! to 3orty ;:s in 01#.#" 9owever=
beca.se a growing n.5ber o3 states are increasing t0e levels o3 renewable energy reD.ired=## t0is c.5.lative co.ld
corres-ondingly be greater. %dditionally= regional alliances are #or-ing to promote rene#ables$ &0e :estern
;overnorsO %ssociation <:;%E#$ agreed .-on a resol.tion t0at calls 3or t0e develo-5ent o3 t0irty ;:s o3
renewable energy by 01#.#* In t0e Nort0east= governors in New +ngland and -re5iers 3ro5 Canadian -rovinces
set a -olicy goal o3 10I renewable energy by 00.#8 (.rt0er5ore= many states re'uire their state agencies to
procure po#er "rom rene#able sources$ Connectic.tOs ;reen Power P.rc0ase Plan directs state agencies and .niversities to -.rc0ase
renewable -ower= wit0 a goal o3 5eeting 0I o3 -ower needs by 010 and .- to 100I in 0#0.#, Si5ilarly= state agencies in New 8ersey are
reD.ired to -.rc0ase an aggregate o3 1I o3 t0eir energy .sage 3ro5 renewable so.rces= and New PorkOs Renewable Power Proc.re5ent Policy
co55itted t0e state govern5ent to -.rc0ase 10I o3 its -ower 3ro5 renewables by 00# and 0I by 010.$0 7ikewise= local govern5ents are
establis0ing t0eir own -rogra5s' 6ontgo5ery Co.nty= 6aryland -.rc0ases #I o3 its -ower 3ro5 wind so.rcesS Portland= 4regon 0as 5et its
c.rrent goal o3 1I renewable -.rc0ases= wit0 an eye towards 100IS and Conway= So.t0 CarolinaOs ;reen Power P.rc0asing -rogra5 obligates
t0e city to -.rc0ase 3i3ty 00 kilowatt20o.r <k:0E blocks o3 electricity -er 5ont0 t0at is generated by land3ill gas.
DDI 08 =
Ciborowski RPS Neg
()< Can6t solve R%C
States solve bene"its o" a R%C better than the national government
>ichaels 2!
<Robert= -ro3essor at 3.llerton= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >National Renewable Port3olio Standard' S5art Policy or
6isg.ided ;est.reLA= -roD.estE FCiborowskiG
In reality ? 11 billion is the di""erence bet#een t#o nonexistent situations< one that assumes absolutely
no R%C trading and one that assumes uni"orm mar-et rules "or all then+existing RPS states$ )his is
not a :nation#ide: system that imposes a single RPS on all states$ In "act a national RPS #ould
diminish these bene"its$ Resources in non+RPS states that utilities in RPS states currently purchase "or
credits #ould be o"" the mar-et and used to satis"y their utilities& o#n national RPS re'uirements$
DDI 08 1
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS Popular
RPS is popular in congress
.avenport 23
<Coral Daven-ort= CK Sta33= 6ay 00*= >Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=
0tt-'BBwww.cD-olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens0eets200000#1,*"*E FCiborowskiG
Supporters say a national @rene#able port"olio standard7 reD.iring 10 -ercent to 0 -ercent o3 electricity
to be -rod.ced 3ro5 renewables could go "ar to#ard lessening 0$S$ "ossil "uel dependence. 7ess t0an #
-ercent o3 t0e nations electricity now co5es 3ro5 renewable so.rces ot0er t0an 0ydroelectricity. &wenty2
two states 0ave enacted renewable standards. 4n &0.rsday* a diverse group o" 1!/ signatories A including
some o" the biggest names in industry* manu"acturing and electric utilities* along #ith environmental
groups A sent a letter to congressional leaders urging passage o" a national rene#able port"olio
standard$ @It6s the broadest ever* it6s the biggest ever7 range o" support seen "or pushing the
rene#able standard= said /inga5an s-okes5an /ill :icker o3 t0e s-ectr.5 o3 signatories= w0ic0 incl.des
;eneral +lectric= /P %5erica= ;oogle and t0e +dison +lectric +lectric Instit.te= w0ic0 re-resents investor2
owned .tilities.
DDI 08 11
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS Bipart
RPS en9oys strong bi+partisanship support in congress
.avenport 23
<Coral Daven-ort= CK Sta33= 6ay 00*= >Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=
0tt-'BBwww.cD-olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens0eets200000#1,*"*E FCiborowskiG
/inga5an wants 0is renewables -ro-osal to be -assed as an a5end5ent to a 5aJor Senate energy -ackage <S
1"1,E. :0en debate begins on t0at 5eas.re in early 8.ne= Bingaman #ill have at the ready an amendment
to re'uire ma9or utilities to generate 18 percent o" their electricity "rom rene#able sources by 00.
Bingaman6s sta"" say they anticipate bipartisan passage o" the proposal$ 2i"ty senators* including
.emocratic leaders and "our Republicans* have signed a letter calling "or a strong rene#able port"olio
standard$ :icker said /inga5ans sta33 3eels >o-ti5isticA abo.t t0e -ro-osals c0ances on t0e 9o.se 3loor i3
it -asses t0e Senate= des-ite t0e -otential o--osition 3ro5 /o.c0er. >%s its never 0ad a 3.ll airing on t0e
9o.se side= #e6re con"ident as more members learn about the bene"its* support #ill continue to build*
and they6ll vote "or passage*7 :icker said.
DDI 08 12
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS Bipart
Par-er 23
<Sara Parker= Sta33 :riter= 8.ne 1!= 00*= >National RPS to Incl.de Coal ? N.clearLA=
0tt-'BBwww.renewableenergyworld.co5BreaBnewsBstoryLidM"8,1E FCiborowskiG
)he proposed RPS <or Renewable +lectricity StandardE wo.ld be added as an a5end5ent to bill S.1"1,=
&0e Renewable (.els= Cons.5er Protection and +nergy +33iciency %ct o3 00*= w0ic0 /inga5an= w0o is
c0air5an o3 t0e Senate +nergy and Nat.ral Reso.rces Co55ittee= co2a.t0ored wit0 Do5enici. &0e
bipartisan legislation is intended to boost domestic rene#able "uel supplies and s-.r regional diversity o3
bio3.els -rod.ction and in3rastr.ct.re across t0e 1.S. But #hile Bingaman&s RPS amendment is
considered to be the most "ar+reaching energy bill li-ely to ma-e it through congress this session= it
wonOt -ass wit0o.t o--osition. N1ndo.btedly= we will debate a5end5ents t0at will bring o.t strong o-inions=
and we will 0ave so5e 0eatedUyet 0onestUdebates=N said Senator /inga5an addressing Congress on
6onday. N/.t I am con"ident that as long as #e -eep in mind our shared goalAto #or- together and
produce legislation that ma-es meaning"ul progress on securing (merica&s energy "utureAthe Senate
#ill rise to the occasion$ )he (merican people expect nothing less$:
DDI 08 1,
Ciborowski RPS Neg
%nv lobbies li-e RPS
>ayer 23
<7indsay Renick 6ayer is t0e 5oney2in2-olitics re-orter 3or t0e Center 3or Res-onsive Politics= >/ig 4il= /ig
In3l.enceA= 0tt-'BBwww.-bs.orgBnowBs0owsB!"*Boil2-olitics.0t5lE
%nvironmentalists* w0o 0ad very little in3l.ence in Congress w0en Re-.blicans were in control= are no#
seeing the la#ma-ers seriously consider their positions$ )his includes environmentalists& support o"
3.el e33iciency standards= a mandate "or electric utility companies to produce 18 percent o" electricity
"rom rene#able sources and t0eir o--osition to coal2to2liD.id 3.el develo-5ent. Now0ere is t0is c0ange in
tides 5ore evident t0an in t0e Senate Co55ittee on +nviron5ent and P.blic :orks= w0ic0 is 0eavily
involved in energy legislation. Cali3ornia Sen. /arbara /oxer= considered one o3 t0e environ5entOs biggest
c0a5-ions= 0as c0aired t0e co55ittee since 0er -arty ass.5ed control o3 t0e Senate in t0e 00$ election.
DDI 08 11
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Boucher hates RPS
.avenport 23
<Coral Daven-ort= CK Sta33= 6ay 00*= >Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=
0tt-'BBwww.cD-olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens0eets200000#1,*"*E
.emocrat Rick Boucher = w0o 0ails 3ro5 coal2ric0 so.t0west Tirginia= has consistently opposed a
rene#able electricity standard$ Boucher also heads the 5ouse %nergy subcommittee charged #ith
cra"ting energy and climate change legislation* and he says that right no# he has no intention o"
including a rene#able port"olio standard in an energy bill 0is -anel is -re-aring 3or t0e 3loor by early
8.ly. Boucher traditionally has "ought any measure that could threaten his district6s coal industry or
raise electricity prices$ &0is 3all= /o.c0er -lans to introd.ce legislation ai5ed at c.rbing global war5ing
wit0 a 5andate to c.t carbon e5issions U a to.g0 -ill to swallow 3or any ind.stry. &0at bill will take to-
-riority= and adding t0e -ress.re o3 renewable energy so.rcing on to- o3 it co.ld be too 5.c0 3or t0e .tilities
and rate-ayers to take= /o.c0er says.
DDI 08 18
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS unpopular
Congress hates the cost o" an RPS
Pegg 28
<8.R. Pegg= +nviron5ent news service sta33 writer= >Senate %--roves National Renewable +nergy StandardA= J.ne
00#= 0tt-'BBwww.ens2newswire.co5BensBJ.n00#B00#20$21*210.as-E FCiborowskiG
Critics o" the provision said it is unrealistic and expensive$ )he standard could cost utilities C and
consumers C some ?1! billion* said ;eorgia Re-.blican Saxby C0a5bliss. NIt imposes a one+size "its all
mandate on the #hole country #ithout regard "or #hether the re'uirement is technologically or
economically "easible*: C0a5bliss said.
DDI 08 1/
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS 0npopular
RPS is extremely unpopular in congress
.urbin 23
<:illia5= +?+ News= >R+N+:%/7+ +N+R;P' :ood 6acken@ieOs :illia5 D.rbin says 3ederal RPS Oeasy 3irst
ste-O 3or e5issions red.ctionA= 6ay 1"E FCiborowskiG
6onica &ra.@@i' ( "ederal RPS "aces 'uite a bit o" opposition both on and o"" the 5ill$ Senator Pete
.omenici* #ho&s the ran-ing member o" the Senate %nergy Committee* opposes an RPS$ (nd industry
groups are saying that a "ederal RPS #ould provide a one+size+"its+all approach #hen one size doesn&t
"it all$ %nd t0eyOre also concerned t0at t0e govern5ent wo.ld be inter3ering wit0 energy 5arkets i3 a 3ederal
RPS was i5-le5ented. %re t0ese valid concernsL :illia5 D.rbin' :ell= #hat you&re describing here are
some pretty serious political issues and #e try to loo- at this #hole issue outside o" the political debate$
So it #ould be hard "or me to say #hether or not they&re valid$ :0at we can say is t0ere are -ositive
bene3its associated i3 yo.Ore looking 3or red.ctions in gas de5and= red.ctions in C4= and red.ctions in
-ower -rices. /.t t0en again= as we ste- o33 into t0e green0o.se gas and C4 legislation we can r.n t0e risk
o3 .nder5ining t0at i3 we try to r.s0 t0at -rocess too 3ast.
DDI 08 13
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Plan unpopular+ Coal lobby
)he coal lobby hates the plan+ )hey6l do everything they can to bloc- it
Boston Dlobe 2!
<7oie 9ayes= >;reen and coal donOt exactly 5ix =A
www.boston.co5Bb.sinessBarticlesB008B0$B08BcoalCgasi3icationCisCdirtyCandC.n-rovenBE FCiborowskiG
I wonder i3 t0e legislators w0o t0ink coal gasi3ication is a green energy so.rce also believed Ronald Reagan
w0en 0e arg.ed t0at ketc0.- s0o.ld co.nt as a vegetable in sc0ool l.nc0 -rogra5s. :Coal gasi"ication: and
:green energy: don&t belong together in the same sentence= let alone in legislation t0atOs s.--osed to
lessen o.r de-endence on dirty 3.els. State subsidies should not be used to tilt the mar-et to#ard
technologies that tear the tops o"" mountains* dumps the re"use into valleys* and buries toxins in the
nation&s shrin-ing "resh #ater supply$ )he coal lobby 2 and t0e /ig %g lobby be0ind t0e bio3.els
boondoggle 2 are already buying up every politician #ithin reachE
DDI 08 1!
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS Inevitable a"ter the election
(n RPS is inevitable a"ter the election no matter #ho #ins
5odge 23
<Nick= >Renewable Port3olio Standard 9owOs #I So.nd to Po.LA= sta33 writer 3or green 5aga@ine=00*=
www.greenc0i-stocks.co5BarticlesBrenewable2-ort3olio2standardE FCiborowskiG
)he consensus= at least at t0is con3erence= is that #e #ill have a national RPS in the next t#o to three
years* no matter #ho #ins the 4hite 5ouse in 2!$ )here also seems to be #idespread belie" among
the "inancial pro"essionals and politicians here that #e&ll have a "ederally mandated cap+and+trade
system "or carbon emissions in that same time$
DDI 08 1=
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Fbama does RPS
Fbama #ants an RPS
Inside rene#able energy 2!
<6ay 1= 008= >Sen. /arack 4ba5a &o.rs PT Powered (acility in 4regonA= news b.lletin=
0tt-'BBwww.renewableenergyworld.co5BreaBnewsBstoryLidM#"",E FCiborowskiG
N9e FSen. >cCainG voted repeatedly against mandates to ensure that #e use more rene#able energy and a
Rene#able Port"olio Standard HRPSI continues to be bloc-ed in part because people li-e John >cCain aren&t
interested in it...In 5y -ro-osals* I&ve called "or a replication o" #hat&s being done right here in Fregon* a 28;
RPS "or the entire nation$ )hat&s #hy I have consistently urged that #e go ahead and pass the ,;
investment tax credit that is so important "or ma-ing sure that companies li-e PK Po#ered continue to
prosper and thrive*: Sen$ Fbama said$
Fbama #ants an RPS
Kammen 2!
<Daniel= San (rancisco C0ronicle= -ro3essor at berkely= >Dan )a55en' Clean energy and %5ericaOs 3.t.re=A 008=
0tt-'BBwww.s3gate.co5Bcgi2binBarticle.cgiL3MBcBaB008B0#B1*BIN!R106;S)E FCiborowskiG
)he .emocratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy port"olio o" at least
28 percent o" electricity "rom clean energy sources by 228* and all three candidates are in "avor o"
cap+and+trade systems to build greenhouse gas mar-ets$ It is vital= b.t -olitically c0allenging= to 5ake
s.re t0at all e5issions credits are a.ctioned= not given away to large -oll.ters. :e are now in a 5o5ent 2
-er0a-s a 3irst 2 w0ere a growing view exists t0at energy and cli5ate co.ld be 3ront2b.rner iss.es 3or
candidates and voters. &0e ti5e is rig0t to 3oc.s on t0e energy syste5 we want= not on t0e one we 0ad= and
sadly= still 0ave.
DDI 08 2
Ciborowski RPS Neg
>cCain does RPS
>cCain li-es rene#ables
Dillam 2!
<Carey= International 9erald &rib.ne= >:ind -ower gains ad0erents in 1nited States=A 008=
www.i0t.co5BarticlesB008B0#B1,Bb.sinessBwind.-0-E FCiborowskiG
Senator 8o0n >cCain= t0e Re-.blican PartyOs -res.5-tive no5inee 3or t0e Nove5ber -residential election=
0as also said he supports #ind energy$ >cCain even chose a #ind energy "acility in Portland* Fregon*
as the setting "or a policy speech on global #arming last week.
DDI 08 21
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Clean Coal )radeo"" lin-
RPS trades o"" #ith clean coal and other technologies
Josten 23
<+xec.tive Tice President= C0a5ber o3 Co55erce o3 t0e 1nited States o3 %5erica=
0tt-'BBenergyco55erce.0o.se.govBCli5ateCC0angeBRSPI03eedbackB1SI0C0a5berI00$I01#I00*.-d3E
FCiborowskiG
4ne o3 t0e 5aJor drawbacks to c.rrent and RPS bills t0at 0ave circ.lated t0ro.g0 Congress is t0e de3inition
o3 w0at energy so.rces are >renewable.A Clean* sa"e* and reliable energy sources such as 0ydro-ower=
n.clear -ower= and clean coal technology have typically been excluded "rom this de"inition . %s a res.lt=
the RPS accomplishes precisely #hat energy legislation should not do< it pic-s #inners and losers$
Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline rene#able port"olio standardUw0ic0= again= t0e
C0a5ber does not consider necessaryUthen it must strive to be as inclusive as possible$ I3 t0e tr.e -olicy
goal o3 an RPS is to enco.rage energy -rod.ction= there is no legitimate reason #hy certain clean* sa"e
energy producers are le"t standing at the door w0ile ot0ers bene3it.
DDI 08 22
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Clean Coal )radeo"" Lin-
RPS -ills clean coal investment
2ershee 2!
<8os0.a= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >C0anging Reso.rces= C0anging 6arket' &0e I5-act o3 a National Renewable
Port3olio Standard on t0e 1.S. +nergy Ind.stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG
%not0er signi3icant iss.e 3acing invest5ent decisions is w0at a national RPS #ould mean 3or decisions
related to other types o" generation that utilities have considered. So5e .tilities= 3or exa5-le= 0ave been
considering b.ilding new n.clear generation 3acilities. n11! ( national RPS #ould seem to ma-e that less
appealing= alt0o.g0 it is not entirely clear t0at new n.clear 3acilities were t0at likely= or t0e best o-tion=
anyway. Nonetheless* a national RPS* at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions& cap*
#ould add another hurdle "or nuclear investment$ Clean coal technologies* another ma9or generation
source in development* n111 #ould "ace similar hurdles= .nless= o3 co.rse= t0e national RPS were to
incl.de clean coal as a renewable so.rce. %nd= o3 co.rse= w0at constit.tes NcleanN is never an easy answer.
n11#
DDI 08 2,
Ciborowski RPS Neg
%nergy Price Lin-
RPS sends electricity prices s-y high
2ershee 2!
<8os0.a= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >C0anging Reso.rces= C0anging 6arket' &0e I5-act o3 a National Renewable
Port3olio Standard on t0e 1.S. +nergy Ind.stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG
So5e ma9or studies indicate a potential increase in consumer electricity costs i" a national RPS #ere
implemented$ )he +nergy In3or5ation %d5inistration <%I(I released a study in June 23 o" a proposed
18; RPS by 2,* #hich indicated that :cumulative residential expenditures on electricity "rom 28
through 2, are ? 3$2 billion <0." -ercentE 0ig0er= w0ile c.5.lative residential ex-endit.res on nat.ral gas
are R 1.0 billion <0.1 -ercentE lower.N n*0 (or a #I RPS by 0#= t0e costs wo.ld likely be 5.c0 5ore
signi3icant' Nt0e cost o3 co5-lying wit0 t0e F#I RPSG is -roJected to increase t0e -rice o3 electricity by
abo.t !.! -ercent and $. -ercent in 0# and 0!0= res-ectively.N n*1 4n a 5ore local level= o--onents o3
t0e Pro-osed RPS 0ave clai5ed t0at consumers in some states could see electricity bills rise as much as ?
18 per month$
DDI 08 21
Ciborowski RPS Neg
%nergy Price Lin-
RPS #ill in"late energy prices
>orrison 2/
<8ay= +lectricity 8o.rnal= >6andated RPS Ignores +cono5ic= Political Reality=A Dece5ber 00$= 8storE
FCiborowskiG
Renewable energy 5andates= 0owever= like t0ose s.--orted by t0e a.t0ors= will increase electric rates to
cons.5ers. &0is s0o.ld be a--arent on its 3ace. (ny mandate creates an arti"icial mar-et "or a
commodity$ I" the mar-et demand cannot be met immediately by ne# entry* the basic la#s o" supply
and demand #ill "orce up the price o" the commodity$ (nd* there are probably "e# mar-ets in the
0nited States #ith as many barriers to entry as the electric utility industry$
DDI 08 28
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Competitiveness "rontline
1$ RPS drives #or-ers overseas
Meatman et al 23
<:illia5= +nergy Policy %nalyst= >;one wit0 t0e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard &0reatens Cons.5ers and
t0e Ind.strial 9eartland=A 0tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8.-d3E FCiborowskiG
)he impact o" a "ederal RPS on manu"acturing regions #ith lo# electricity costs and lo# #ind energy
potential promises to raise electricity rates considerably$ %ccording to t0e Co55erce De-art5ents
/.rea. o3 +cono5ic %nalysis ind.stry s-eciali@ation index= w0ic0 5eas.res states level o3 ind.strial
s-eciali@ation= the 0pper >id#est and the Southeast are more dependent on the manu"acturing sector
than other regions$ (lthough manu"acturers have moved their "actories "rom states #ith high
electricity costs to these states #ith lo#er electricity costs* a "ederal RPS #ould then tend to drive these
industries to "oreign countries #ith lo#er electricity rates$
2$ (n RPS #ould "ail at providing economic security+ competition comes "rom other sectors
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
Both national and international competition #ill exist #ith or #ithout a "ederal RPS$ )he existing
rene#ables industry has also had "e# problems accessing the capital mar-ets$ Ne# technologies are
attracting venture capital and "irms as large as Deneral %lectric are using their o#n cash* all #ithout a
national RPS . &0ere are also no i5-ortant econo5ies o3 scale o.tside o3 5an.3act.ring. +ngineering and
constr.ction are wit0in t0e ex-ertise o3 n.5ero.s contractors= 5ost D.ite s5all relative to t0eir 5arkets. %ll
co5-etitive -rod.cers 3ace -ress.re to red.ce costs= wit0 or wit0o.t 5andatory -.rc0ase reD.ire5ents like
an RPS. Competition to innovate comes "rom both other rene#ables ma-ers and producers o" non+
rene#ables that are substitutes "or some buyers$ %n RPS c.ts t0e degree o3 -ress.re t0at co5es 3ro5 t0e
latter by 3oreclosing t0e5 3ro5 -art o3 t0e 5arket. Prod.cers also red.ce costs by observing and i5itating
s.ccess3.l -ractices o3 ot0ers= incl.ding 3oreigners. % growing 5arket in intellect.al -ro-erty allows
%5ericans access to new tec0nologies wit0o.t d.-licating t0e researc0 o3 ot0ers.", Innovations extend
beyond tec0nology to new o-erating -ractices and contract -rovisions w0ic0 can also be i5itated. So5e see
RPS as a tactic t0at can 5ake t0e 1.S. t0e worldOs leading renewables -rod.cer= -ossibly in res-onse to t0e
alleged growt0 o3 a govern5entally g.ided renewables ind.stry in 8a-an.#0 4t0ers clai5 t0at a large
-ercentage o3 t0e Jobs created by an RPS will be in ex-orting renewables.#1 %not0er a.t0or is concerned
abo.t a dro- in t0e 1.S. s0are o3 global solar collector -rod.ction 3ro5 "" -ercent in 1,,$ to below , -ercent
in 00#.# &0e si5-le 3act is t0at t0e case 3or 3ree trade in renewables is no di33erent 3ro5 t0e case 3or 3ree
trade in anyt0ing else.#! I3 %5ericans are relatively 5ore -rod.ctive in renewables t0ey will s.--ly ot0er
nations. I3 not= so5eone else will and %5ericans will -rod.ce ot0er goods and services.#" >ore
realistically* the 0$S$ #ill both import and export rene#ables$ ( declining share o" solar production
probably indicates that others should do the 9ob <or -ossibly t0at solar is overratedE. International trade
in rene#ables raises "e# security issues because they are manu"actured in so many nations and beca.se
t0ey e5body 3ew i3 any 5aterials essential 3or national de3ense.
DDI 08 2/
Ciborowski RPS Neg
,$ F""icials #on6t be able to en"orce the RPS
Carlsen 2!
<Pa.l Carlsen= >S?P renewables reality c0eck 3inds t0e5 too little= costly and O-ain3.lO 3or ratings=A 008= 8storE
FCiborowskiG
No existing RPS has met original goals$ &enty2nine states and t0e District o3 Col.5bia now 0ave so5e ty-e o3
RPS= .- 3ro5 abo.t a do@en 3o.r years ago <see 5a-= -age 11E. % t0ird were ado-ted in t0e -ast two years. >%nd=
since 00$= nine o3 t0e , states t0at 0ad so5e sort o3 RPS act.ally increased t0eir renewable targets= notably be3ore
any o3 t0e5 5et t0eir original goals=N Selting noted. /.t #ith :going green: Hho#ever de"inedI having rapidly
become a corporate virtue* utilities that do not meet RPS ob9ectives can be blamed* even i" the goals #ere
unreasonable$ N&0ese 3easibility risks are -artic.larly ac.te in states t0at ado-t increasingly aggressive targets
be3ore de5onstrating t0e viability o3 earlier goals=N S?P -ointed o.t. %ccording to t0e +nergy In3or5ation %gencyOs
(ebr.ary 008 +lectric Power 6ont0ly= excl.ding conventional 0ydroelectric L w0ic0= Selting said= not all states
consider NgreenN L only abo.t .#I o3 1S generation in t0e 3irst 11 5ont0s o3 00* was 3ro5 renewable reso.rces.
43 t0at= #"I was 3ro5 wood and related waste= !1I 3ro5 wind= 1"I 3ro5 geot0er5al L and 1I 3ro5 solar.
4n a rolling 125ont0 basis= wind generation !1=*#$ was ;:0 last year L .- 1."I 3ro5 00$ and al5ost 1=000I
3ro5 t0e !=000 ;:0 in 1,,!. /.t it still re-resented only 0.8I o3 last yearOs 1S total= and virt.ally no c0ange 3ro5
00$Os 0.$I. +I% 3ig.res s0ow woodBwood waste= at ##=!!$ ;:0= was down 1.1I 3ro5 1,,!= and geot0er5al= at
1"=8#1 ;:0= was down 11.#I. 4ver t0ose 1# years solar went 3ro5 "$ ;:0 to $0$ ;:0= S?P noted. &0e 00*
rolling 125ont0 total was abo.t 10=##0 ;:0 3or t0ose 3o.r renewables categories. +5erging +nergy Researc0
esti5ates t0at to 5eet RPS reD.ire5ents in t0e " states <and :as0ington= DCE wit0 5andatory standards= anot0er
1$0=000 ;:0 wo.ld 0ave to be generated in 01#.V N&0at translates into a ro.g0 reD.ire5ent t0at so5e $=000 6:
o3 new renewable ca-acity co5e online eac0 year ... :e D.estion w0et0er t0is is attainable=N s0e contin.ed=
es-ecially since Congress 0as yet to extend t0e 1., centBk:0 -rod.ction tax credit 3or wind beyond t0e end o3 t0is
year <+1:= 10 6arc0= *E. In Cali3ornia= 3or exa5-le= independent energy producers recently accused utilities o"
deliberately delaying the addition o" rene#able resources* and have as-ed the Cali"ornia Public 0tilities
Commission to audit utility RPS po#er supply bids$ )hese "easibility ris-s are particularly acute in states that
adopt increasingly aggressive targets be"ore demonstrating the viability o" earlier goals$
DDI 08 23
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Jobs turn %xt
( national RPS #ould drive operating costs up and "orce 9obs over seas -illing our competitiveness
Meatman et al 23
<:illia5= +nergy Policy %nalyst= >;one wit0 t0e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard &0reatens Cons.5ers and
t0e Ind.strial 9eartland=A 0tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8.-d3E FCiborowskiG
Concl.sion. De-ending on t0e c.rrent cost o3 electricity and renewable energy -otential= t0e econo5ic
i5-act o3 a 3ederal renewable -ort3olio standard is 5odest in so5e regions o3 t0e co.ntry and dire in ot0ers.
State legislators 0ave weig0ed t0e econo5ic costs and bene3its o3 an RPS in t0eir states and acted
accordingly. Congress should not impose a "ederal rene#able port"olio standard on those states that
0ave correctly J.dged t0at s.c0 a 5andate #ould raise their consumer electricity prices and destroy 9obs
in energy+intensive industries$ :0ile 6e5bers o3 Congress 3ro5 so5e regions o3 t0e co.ntry 5ay be
te5-ted to econo5ically disadvantage states in ot0er regions by voting 3or a 3ederal RPS= t0ey s0o.ld
recogni@e t0at it is not in the nation6s interest to undermine any o" our manu"acturing industries$
( national RPS #ould drive 9obs overseas+ ma-es cost o" operating too high
Meatman et al 23
<:illia5= +nergy Policy %nalyst= >;one wit0 t0e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard &0reatens Cons.5ers and
t0e Ind.strial 9eartland=A 0tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8.-d3E FCiborowskiG
&0ese RPS states tend to 0ave a 5.c0 0ig0er -otential 3or renewable energy= less energy2intensive
5an.3act.ring= or bot0$ In the RPS states that do have considerable manu"acturing* the e""ect o"
adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and push manu"acturing into states or other
countries #ith lo#er electricity prices$ &0ere3ore= a "ederal RPS #ould re'uire states #ith lo#
electricity prices and proportionately lo#er rene#able energy potential* such as is "ound in
our industrial heartland* to raise electricity prices to a level that #ould "orce their industries to
migrate overseas to countries wit0 c0ea-er energy rates and no renewable -ort3olio standards.
DDI 08 2!
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS 5urts Competitiveness
RPS hurts the 0$S$ economy
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
(n RPS is a design standard that restricts the allo#able set o" technologies even i" there are cheaper
#ays to reduce the pollutant$ %ven i" an RPS encourages innovation in the allo#able technologies* it
#ill probably discourage experimentation #ith technologies <incl.ding de5and 5anage5entE t0at do not D.ali3y .nder it.!*
6atc0 geogra-0y wit0 costs and bene3its. &o t0e extent -ossible= a -oll.tant s0o.ld be reg.lated over an area wide eno.g0 to incl.de all relevant so.rces
and narrow eno.g0 to s.bs.5e only locations w0ere act.al 0ar5 occ.rs. (or exa5-le= +P%Os Clean %ir Interstate R.le 3or S4= N4x and so5e -artic.lates
will only a--ly in 6idwestern and +astern states w0ere t0ey signi3icantly a33ect air D.ality and winds seldo5 blow t0e5 away.,! ( national RPS
#ill result in ine""iciently lo# concentrations in areas that are already in compliance* and must be
coordinated #ith other programs in non+attainment areas$ It 5ay 0ave too large a 3oot-rint 3or so5e
criteria -oll.tants= and too s5all a 3oot-rint 3or ;9;$ I" D5D a""ect the entire planet* the impacts o"
re'uiring a small portion o" one industry in one nation to change its technology #ill be costly to the
industry and its customers= and sy5bolic 3or everyone else.
DDI 08 2=
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS .oesn6t solve competitiveness
RPS does nothing to icrease competetiveness
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
Fthers hope that a national RPS can bring 0$S$ domination o" the #orld&s rene#ables mar-ets$ 4ne
advocate sees it as a necessary res-onse to renewables2based ex-ort -olicies t0at are taking s0a-e in 8a-an.
n!, 9e believes %5ericans 5.st e5.late t0e coo-eration between 8a-anOs 5an.3act.rers and govern5ent -lanners= a vision o3 invincibility 3ro5 t0e 1,*0s
and 1,80s t0at died wit0 t0e recession and banking crisis o3 t0e 1,,0s. n1 %xperience gives little reason to expect that such
concerted policy "ormation can ma-e either nation dominant$ )he 0$S$ #ill continue to export those in
#hich it has a cost NO=1G advantage and import those in #hich it does not$ n11 International trade in
rene#ables raises no security issues* since they are ordinary manu"actures that no nation or group can
credibly monopolize$
DDI 08 ,
Ciborowski RPS Neg
4arming 2rontline
RPS 4on6t reduce global #arming
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
Des-ite constant tweaking= N+6SO c.5.lative record is not enco.raging. Its 3orecast acc.racy 0as i5-roved
little wit0 ex-erience= -artic.larly 3or longer 0ori@ons like t0ose o3 RPS st.dies. Some seemingly accurate
"orecasts <e.g.= energy cons.5-tionE re"lect signi"icant o""setting "orecast errors in their components
<;DP and energy intensityE.$ Sometimes the "orecasts are hard to s'uare #ith reality$ &0e 1.S. Senate
.sed a 8.ne 00* +I% st.dy to J.sti3y -ossible incl.sion o3 an RPS in legislation. It -redicts t0at by 0!0
bio5ass generation will 0ave increased 5ore t0an seven3old= w0ile wind will 0ave increased by only "00
-ercent. /io5assO s0are o3 renewable generation 0as 3allen since 1,,1 and its absol.te a5o.nt <wood -l.s
waste b.rningE is ro.g0ly .nc0anged <&able E. Nevert0eless N+6S -redicts so t0oro.g0 a recovery t0at it
will -rod.ce $8 -ercent o3 renewable -ower in 0!0 and wind will -rod.ce only 1$ -ercent.* )he
complexity o" N%>S ma-es it di""icult to determine #hich empirical "actors drive the reversal* to
chec- #hether assumptions #ithin its mathematical structure might be responsible* or to calculate the
level o" con"idence #e can have in the prediction$ 4e do -no# that currently active po#er plant
proposals contain very small amounts o" biomass capacity and thousands o" mega#atts o" #ind$ 6ost
N+6S2based st.dies -redict t0at a national RPS will -rod.ce relatively s5all increases in -ower -rices
.nder t0e 5odelOs ass.5-tions abo.t tec0nology i5-rove5ent and 5arket conditions. %s a general 5atter=
5ore N5at.reN tec0nologies <like wind is beco5ingE 0ave signi3icantly slower rates o3 cost decrease t0an less
5at.re ones., Si5-ler 5odels 0ave con3ir5ed N+6SO 3indings t0at a national RPS will red.ce -rod.ction
o3 ;9; by s.bstantially less t0an t0e sti-.lated -ort3olio -ercentage= e.g.= a 10 -ercent reD.ire5ent dro-s
;9; by only $ -ercent.!0 ;as23ired .nits will generally be on t0e 5argin= b.t c.tting t0eir o.t-.t to
acco55odate inter5ittent renewables red.ces ;9;s by less t0an i3 coal23ired generation co.ld be c.t w0en
t0ey are o-erating. )he characteristics o" coal units* ho#ever* ma-e 'uic- changes in their output costly
or impossible$
China6s illegal po#erplants o""set any gains made by the a""
Fster 2/
<S9%I 4S&+R= Dece5ber *= 00$= :all street Jo.rnal= >Illegal Power Plants= Coal 6ines In C0ina Pose C0allenge
3or /eiJingA= 0tt-'BBonline.wsJ.co5B-.blicBarticleBS/11$*18**!*0$015Na1KDcx5
DkPP+oJ1QbxtTC6gCsC00*0"!.0t5lE FCborowskiG
)he illegal plants have 0ad .nintended 22 and detrimental ++ conse'uences$ By esche#ing even basic
environmental sa"eguards* they stand out as polluters even in an industry that is one o" China&s leading
sources o" emissions= o33icials say. &0ey also 0ave driven .- t0e de5and 3or and -rice o3 coal= t0e co.ntryOs
5ost ab.ndant so.rce o3 3.el. &0at= in t.rn= 0as s-awned t0o.sands o3 illegal coal 5ines t0at 0ave
contrib.ted to 5ore t0an "=000 coal25ining deat0s in C0ina t0is year. )he illegal po#er plants sho# ho#
China&s economic trans"ormation is outpacing Bei9ing&s ability to manage it$ Never be3ore 0as a co.ntry
wit0 s.c0 a big -o-.lation grown as ra-idly as C0ina. &0e co.ntryOs econo5y 0as ex-anded an average 10I
a year since t0e late 1,*0s. &0e -rocess o3 econo5ic 5oderni@ation is 0a--ening twice as 3ast in C0ina as it
did in t0e 1.S. or 8a-an= w0ere it took 0al3 a cent.ry or 5ore. Fne "i"th o" the po#er plants in China are
illegal= according to govern5ent esti5ates 22 eno.g0 to lig0t .- all o3 t0e 1.). :0ile t0e electricity t0ey
s.--ly is essential to -ower C0inaOs growt0= the uncontrolled manner in #hich they are multiplying= o3ten
.nder t0e -rotection o3 local a.t0orities* poses a challenge to Bei9ing&s authority and its grip on energy
policy. NIt is i5-ossible 3or o.r central govern5ent to go everyw0ere to see= w0en t0e s5all -ower -lants
start b.ilding=N said W0ang ;.obao= vice c0air5an o3 t0e National Develo-5ent and Re3or5 Co55ission=
C0inaOs to- energy -olicy -lanner= in an interview. )he central government is li-e#ise "inding it hard to
crac- do#n on illegal coal mines$
DDI 08 ,1
Ciborowski RPS Neg
China o""sets gains
China #on6t comply #ith modeling+ means no solvency
Bergsten 2!
<C. (red /ergsten= sta33 writer= (oreign %33airs= 8.lyB%.g.st 008= >9ow :as0ington S0o.ld Res-ond to C0inaOs
+cono5ic C0allengeA= 0tt-'BBwww.3oreigna33airs.orgB0080*013aessay8*"0"2-!0Bc23red2bergstenBa2-artners0i-2o32
eD.als.0t5lE FCiborowskiG
6ore 3ar2reac0ing ste-s 5ig0t involve t0e creation o3 new international nor5s and instit.tional arrange5ents
to govern iss.e areas t0at are i5-ortant b.t c.rrently .nreg.lated= s.c0 as global war5ing and sovereign
wealt0 3.nds <S:(sE. &o date= China has stead"astly re"used to even contemplate binding constraints on
its greenhouse gas emissions$ So 0as t0e 1nited States= b.t t0at stance see5s likely to c0ange dra5atically
a3ter t0e -residential election in Nove5ber= no 5atter w0o wins. (n emissions regime* ho#ever* may #ell
lead to the installation o" trade barriers in participating countries against carbon+intensive products
"rom nonparticipating countries$ 6oreover= global #arming cannot be seriously addressed #ithout
China* #hich has become the #orld&s largest polluter$
DDI 08 ,2
Ciborowski RPS Neg
China and India o""set gains
)rend to#ards global decarbonization o" developed countries is increasing C ma-ing
declines in C2 emissions and a shi"t to alternative energy inevitable
Robert Bryce= 5anaging editor o3 +nergy &rib.ne 5aga@ine=6!= >&0e ;ood News %bo.t
+nergyA= 0tt-'BBwww.a5erican.co5Barc0iveB008BJ.ly2a.g.st25aga@ine2contentsBt0e2good2news2abo.t2energy
(mid this torrent o" doom and gloom* there is some good ne#s that has largely been
ignored by the media< the trend to#ard consumption o" cleaner "uels that contain less
carbon$ )his decrease in the carbon intensity o" global energy use* -no#n as
decarbonization* has been ongoing "or more than t#o centuries and appears to be
gathering speed$ Better still* decarbonization is continuing #ithout government
mandates or subsidies$ )he reason "or this is clear< consumers are al#ays see-ing the
cleanest* densest "uels that they can get$ Diven a choice* most consumers #ould pre"er coo-ing their
dinner over a natural gas stove rather than a #ood "ire$ >ost also pre"er electric lights to -erosene lanterns or
candles "or illuminating their homes$ )he reasons "or these pre"erences are obvious< natural gas and electricity
don6t pollute indoor air #hen they are used$ Lo#er carbon "uels are lighter* more easily transported* and more
"lexible than their high+carbon competitors$ Coal is denser* contains more energy* and is easier to handle than
#ood$ Fil ta-es up hal" as much space as coal and can be transported easily and cheaply by pipeline$ Natural gas
can be used "or many o" the same purposes as oil* including terrestrial transportation* po#er generation* and
space heating* but is no# cheaper than oil Hon a Btu basisI$ Plus* gas emits about hal" as much carbon dioxide as
coal and creates "ar "e#er air pollutants than either oil or coal$ %lectricity H#hich o" course must be manu"actured
"rom coal* natural gas* oil* or uraniumI is extremely "lexible* is easily transported via #ires* and can be s#itched
on or o"" #ith the "lic- o" a s#itch$ 0sing carbon+based "uels li-e coal* oil* and natural gas to create cleaner* more
ordered "orms o" energy li-e electricity provides opportunities to use evermore sophisticated tools* #ith computers
and lasers being prime examples o" this trend$ )he decarbonization o" the #orld6s energy mix has been ongoing
"or centuries$ 2rom prehistory through the 13s and early 1!s* #ood #as the #orld6s most common "uel$ 4ood
has a carbon+to+hydrogen ratio HC<5I o" 1 to 1$ )hat is* it has about 1 carbon atoms "or every hydrogen atom$
But as the 4estern #orld industrialized* #ood lost its dominance to coal$ Coal #as a dramatic improvement over
#ood #ith a C<5 ratio o" about 2 to 1$ But coal #as destined to lose out to oil* particularly "or transportation*
than-s to oil6s greater energy density and a C<5 ratio o" 1 to 2$ Fver the coming decades* natural gas #ill be the
big #inner* a result o" its 1 to 1 C<5 ratio$ )hus* #hen compared to #ood* natural gas has 1 times as many
hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms$ (nd that transition to#ard hydrogen has many advantages* particularly #hen it
comes to issues li-e air 'uality and carbon dioxide emissions$ >&0e inverse o3 decarboni@ation is t0e ascendancy o3
0ydrogen=A ex-lains 8esse %.s.bel= t0e director o3 t0e -rogra5 3or t0e 0.5an environ5ent at Rocke3eller 1niversity and
one o3 t0e -ri5ary develo-ers o3 t0e conce-t o3 decarboni@ation. >&0ink o3 0ydrogen and carbon co5-eting 3or 5arket
nic0e as did 0orses and a.to5obiles= or a.dio cassettes and co5-act discs= exce-t t0e 0ydrogenBcarbon co5-etition
extends over !00 years.A %.s.bel esti5ates t0at in 1800= carbon 0ad ,0 -ercent o3 t0e 5arket= a re3lection o3 t0e 3act t0at
carbon2intensive 3.els like wood and coal -redo5inated. /y 1,!#= as oil beca5e 5ore -ro5inent= carbon and 0ydrogen
were tied in t0eir contest 3or 5arket s0are= wit0 eac0 0aving abo.t #0 -ercent o3 t0e global energy b.siness. /y 100=
%.s.bel -redicts t0at 0ydrogen will co55and ,0 -ercent o3 t0e global energy 5arket= and t0at do5inance will largely be
d.e to t0e s.-re5acy o3 nat.ral gas. %.s.bel is one o3 several energy 3orecasters w0o 3oresee a boo5ing 3.t.re 3or
nat.ral gas. Peter R. 4dell o3 Rotterda5s +ras5.s 1niversity -redicts t0at by 100 t0e global gas ind.stry will be >5ore
t0an 3ive ti5es its si@e in 000.A (.rt0er= by 0"0= 4dell -redicts t0at gas cons.5-tion will overtake oil .se= and by 100
or so 0e ex-ects gas to acco.nt 3or abo.t *# -ercent o3 t0e worlds 0ydrocarbon cons.5-tion. 43 co.rse= t0ere are
co.nter2indicators to t0e decarboni@ation trend. /ot0 C0ina and India are relying 0eavily on coal. (or instance=
in 00$ alone= C0ina ex-anded its electricity generation ca-acity by 10 gigawattsUt0ats abo.t t0e sa5e ca-acity as all
o3 (rances electric -ower -lants co5bined. In ot0er words= C0inas electric grid added (rance. %nd o3 t0at 10 gigawatts
o3 new -ower ca-acity= abo.t ,0 -ercent was coal23ired. %nd de-ending on w0ose n.5bers yo. believe= t0e C0inese
contin.e adding new coal23ired -ower -lants at t0e rate o3 abo.t one -er week. India= t0e second 5ost -o-.lo.s co.ntry
on t0e -lanet= is e5.lating C0inas electri3ication -lans. /y 0!0= India -lans to 5ore t0an tri-le its electricity generation
ca-acity= going 3ro5 abo.t 1!0 gigawatts in 00* to abo.t "00 gigawatts. %nd like C0ina= t0e vast 5aJority o3 t0at new
electricity will be generated by b.rning coal. /y 01= India -lans to add 5ore t0an "$ gigawatts o3 new coal23ired -ower
-lants. &0at "$ gigawatts is a--roxi5ately eD.al to all o3 t0e electricity generation ca-acity o3 6exico. /y 01= Indias
coal cons.5-tion is ex-ected to J.5- by 5ore t0an #0 -ercent to so5e *!0 5illion tons -er year. C0ina and India are
.tili@ing t0eir do5estic coal reso.rces 3or a si5-le reason' cost. Coal is c0ea-er <on a /t. basisE t0an eit0er oil or nat.ral
DDI 08 ,,
Ciborowski RPS Neg
gas. /.t w0ile bot0 co.ntries are -.rs.ing coal in t0e near ter5= t0eir longer2ter5 ex-ansion -lans call 3or
increasing .se o3 nat.ral gas= bot0 in t0e 3or5 o3 do5estically -rod.ced gas and in t0e 3or5 o3 i5-orted
liD.e3ied nat.ral gas. %nd as t0e two co.ntries increase t0eir gas cons.5-tion= t0e -rocess o3 decarboni@ation
will likely contin.e. :0ile C0ina and India get lots o3 attention= /ra@il a--ears to be t0e o.tlier wit0 regard to
decarboni@ation. %.s.bels latest researc0 s0ows t0at carbon intensity in /ra@il is act.ally going .-ward. &0is
>carboni@ationA o3 /ra@ils econo5y is d.e to t0e s.ccess o3 Petrobras= t0e state2owned energy co5-any= w0ic0 over t0e
-ast 3ew years 0as s0own re5arkable -rowess at 3inding and develo-ing oil 3ields in t0e dee- water o33 t0e /ra@ilian
coast. &0at s.ccess was 3.rt0ered last Nove5ber w0en Petrobras anno.nced t0at its new o33s0ore &.-i 3ield 5ay 0old .-
to 8 billion barrels o3 oil eD.ivalentUone o3 t0e largest oil discoveries in t0e last 0 years. So t0e -rocess o3
decarboni@ation is not a s5oot0 one. &0ere will be 0icc.-s along t0e way as vario.s co.ntries= -artic.larly
t0ose in t0e develo-ing world= grow t0eir econo5ies and .se t0eir indigeno.s energy reso.rces.
(.rt0er5ore= decarboni@ation wont -.t 5ore oil in t0e gro.nd= nor will it 0alt t0e 3low o3 carbon dioxide
into t0e eart0s at5os-0ere. /.t t0e b.rgeoning .se o3 low2 or no2carbon reso.rces s.c0 as nat.ral gas and
n.clear -ower -rovide 0o-e t0at -eak oil will not be t0e cala5ito.s event t0at so5e are -redicting. %nd as
t0ese cleaner 3.els slowly take 5arket s0are away 3ro5 5ore carbon2intensive 3.els= t0ey will 0el- slow t0e
rate o3 growt0 o3 global carbon dioxide e5issions. 43 co.rse= no one knows 3or certain w0at concentration o3
at5os-0eric carbon dioxide is o-ti5al. /.t 4dell -redicts t0at over t0e co5ing cent.ry t0e increasing .se o3 nat.ral gas
>will restrain t0e rate o3 growt0 in ant0ro-ogenic2created e5issionsA o3 carbon dioxide by abo.t 1# -ercent w0en
co5-ared to t0e e5issions t0at wo.ld occ.r i3 c.rrent2day -ercentages o3 coal and oil cons.5-tion re5ained .nc0anged.
&0e res.lt o3 t0is increasing .se o3 nat.ral gas= -redicts 4dell= is t0at carbon dioxide e5issions >in 100 see5
.nlikely to be 5.c0 5ore t0an twice t0eir 000 level.A
DDI 08 ,1
Ciborowski RPS Neg
Drid 2ronline
1$ 4ithout upgrades o" the grid RPS is usless
2ershee 2!
<8os0.a= +nergy 7aw 8o.rnal= >C0anging Reso.rces= C0anging 6arket' &0e I5-act o3 a National Renewable
Port3olio Standard on t0e 1.S. +nergy Ind.stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG
4hether "rom #ind* solar* biomass* or other rene#able sources* massive amounts o" rene#able energy
generation #ould re'uire tremendous investment in ne# generation "acilities$ n18 So5e so.rces= like
solar or wind= co.ld even reD.ire additional invest5ent in additional traditional23.el generation to s.--ort t0e
inter5ittent energy so.rces <i.e.= to -rovide energy w0en t0e wind or s.n is FX$*G not availableE. n1,
(.rt0er5ore= to -rovide renewable energy at t0at level= ma9or investments in the transmission grid #ould
need to occur$ n1!0 In3rastr.ct.re c0anges at s.c0 a 0ig0 level wo.ld 3.nda5entally c0ange 0ow electricity
is delivered= and t0.s 0ow .tilities o-erate
2$ RPS puts more strain on the grid causing increased blac-outs
2reeman 2/
<6ars0a= >N+RC (orecast' Necessary %ctions ReD.ired to Save 1.S. +lectric ;rid=A sta33 writer=
0tt-'BBwww.laro.c0e-.b.co5Bot0erB00$B!!"!-owerCs0ortages.0t5lE
(nother cra@e wit0 t0e potential to destabilize the "ragile electric grid is the promotion o" :rene#able:
energy sources$ C.rrently= a total o3 1 states and t0e District o3 Col.5bia 0ave ado-ted reD.ire5ents 3or
t0e -.rc0ase o3 renewable energy by .tilities= so5eti5es 3or as 5.c0 as #I o3 t0eir total s.--ly. :ind
generation is ex-ected to -rovide t0e b.lk o3 t0is NrenewableN energy. 9owever= N+RC -oints o.t= N #ind
generation is o"ten located in remote areas* #hich re'uires ne# transmission construction to deliver its
energy: to #here it is needed$ In addition* because #ind and other :rene#able: resources are
intermittent in nature* generating capacity is unpredictable* re'uiring the installation o" additional
reliable generating capacity= .s.ally 3ossil23.eled= to ens.re t0e ability to serve c.sto5ers.
,$ It6s ridiculous to assume that blac-out #ill -ill the economy+ #e have the al the time$
DDI 08 ,8
Ciborowski RPS Neg
States solve Blac-outs
States are ta-ing the necessary steps to solve "or the grid blac-outs
4hieldon 2!
<+st0er :0ieldon= +lectric .tility sta33 writer>1tilities 3ind co55on incentives to collaborate on 5aJor trans5ission
-roJects=A 8storE FCiborowskiG
(or t0e 3irst ti5e in decades= utilities in the 4est are 9oining "orces to develop ma9or transmission lines
that #ould cross multiple state and national borders to access areas rich in rene#able resources$
1S .tilities 0ave yet to ta- into t0e vast -otential o3 renewable generation in /ritis0 Col.5bia= Canada= and
in -arts o3 t0e Nort0west beca.se .ntil now= t0eyOve 0ad little to no econo5ic incentives. &0e 0ig0 level o3
3inancial risk in0erent in develo-ing large2scale 5.lti2J.risdictional -ower lines 0as been eno.g0 to scare
away even t0e t0ree largest .tilities in Cali3ornia. /.t t0e -olitical cli5ate 0as beco5e 5ore 3avorable toward
5aJor trans5ission -roJects in t0e last 3ew years= say econo5ic analysts= inde-endent -ower -rod.cers and
.tility exec.tives. (+RCOs o-en2access trans5ission tari33 re3or5s= state and 3ederal tax incentives and state
rene#able port"olio standards HRPSI are some o" the -ey motivators bringing utilities and developers
to the table "or grid expansion e""orts$
DDI 08 ,/
Ciborowski RPS Neg
No compliance
F""icials #on6t "orce compliance ma-es the impacts inevitable
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
State ex-eriences wit0 RPS s.ggest t0at it is less a breakt0ro.g0 t0an anot0er e-isode o3 reg.lation2as2.s.al. Its
-olitical -oint is to s0ow concern by instit.ting a see5ingly stringent reD.ire5ent and leaving co5-liance 3or
so5eone else to en3orce$ %lected o""icials #ill have little subse'uent interest* both because o" its obscure
complexity and because serious en"orcement probably means higher bills$ Cali3orniaOs .tilities and reg.lators
a--ear to .nderstand t0e interests o3 legislators. Des-ite t0e reality o3 al5ost no new o-erating renewables= t0e
CP1COs 8an.ary 00* re-ort to t0e legislat.re says .tilities are Nclosing in on t0e 0 -ercent target wit0 3o.r years o3
-roc.re5ent a0ead.N8# 4n -age it notes t0at t0e legal de3inition o3 co5-liance is o-eration= b.t all s.bseD.ent
gra-0ics and data re3er to signed contracts. Des-ite t0e .nenco.raging data disc.ssed above= t0e CP1C re-ortOs
-roJections ass.5e t0at no new contracts will 3ail and all ex-iring ones will be renewed or re3or5.lated.
Political and economic interests #ill determine the provisions o" a "ederal RPS* and utilities #ill ma-e their
choices about compliance. Cali3orniaOs a--ear to be treating t0eir RPS as a tactical tool to reestablis0 -ri5acy t0at
0as been di5inis0ed by co5-etition and divestit.res reD.ired by restr.ct.ring. Its RPS 0as bro.g0t back IRP and
.tility2environ5entalist collaboration= wit0 t0e a--roval o3 legislators and reg.lators. Its restrictive c.rrent -olicies
and .ncertain 3.t.re ones 0ave drastically red.ced in2state 3ossil generation invest5ents= and its co5ing carbon
reg.lation will 3.rt0er raise -ower costs. Renewables will be delayed i3 t0ey are b.ilt at all= and de5and
5anage5ent -rogra5s are also .nder-er3or5ing.8$ &0e co5ing cr.nc0 -resents an ideal o--ort.nity 3or .tilities to
vertically reintegrate t0e5selves. In 00$ So.t0ern Cali3ornia +dison received an 4rder 3ro5 t0e CP1C to install
#06: o3 t.rbines and !006: o3 de5and res-onse in antici-ation o3 a ca-acity s0ort3all in s.55er 00*.8* &0e
-.rc0ase was exe5-ted 3ro5 co5-lex and lengt0y co5-etitive -roc.re5ent -roced.res as a one2ti5e action to deal
wit0 an i5-ending e5ergency= b.t t0ere are good reasons to ex-ect t0at e-isodes like t0is one will rec.r. 5o#
utilities and others #ill game a "ederal RPS #ill depend on its details* but there is little reason to assume
anyone #ill passively comply$
DDI 08 ,3
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS .oesn6t help the environment
RPS .oesn6t a""ect the environment
>ichaels 2!
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
&0e .tilityOs o-ti5al c0oice will de-end on ex-ectations o3 t0e 3.t.re and on t0e legacy generation t0e .tility
is bringing 3orward. Renewables 0ave been available as s.--ly o-tions 3or so5e ti5e= b.t 5ost .tilities
a--ear to 0ave deter5ined t0at t0ey can 5eet t0eir service obligations and re5ain in environ5ental
co5-liance by investing in conventional -lants and de5and 5anage5ent. In states wit0 RPS= .tilities 0ave
generally c0osen to 5ake t0e reD.ired co5-liance invest5ents in renewables= b.t not to b.ild renewables
beyond t0ose a5o.nts. % national RPS a33ects bot0 t0ose states wit0 existing -rogra5s and t0ose wit0o.t. In
t0e latter it 3orces t0e costly 5odi3ication o3 s.--ly -lans t0at .tilities ex-ect will be in co5-liance wit0 air
D.ality and ;9; reg.lations. &0e 3act t0at renewables 0ave lower e5issions cannot by itsel3 J.sti3y a
reD.ire5ent t0at t0ey be b.ilt in lie. o3 conventional generation. +cono5ic e33iciency 5eans -rod.ction at
least cost= w0ere costs re3lect t0e 5arket val.es o3 all relevant reso.rces. :0et0er lower allowable
concentrations o3 -oll.tants or e5issions o3 ;9; are warranted is -ro-erly t0e s.bJect o3 r.le5akings like
t0ose t0at 0ave set c.rrently standards= rat0er t0an an ad 0oc reg.lation like RPS.

DDI 08 ,!
Ciborowski RPS Neg
RPS .oesn6t help the environment
National RPS #on6t help environment
<Robert = C%&4 instit.te= >% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S.s-ect=A
8storE FCiborowskiG
:e begin wit0 data on renewables w0ic0 s.ggests t0at a 3ederal RPS will bring little diversity in generation
reso.rces and 3ew environ5ental bene3its. &0e next sections exa5ine advocatesO clai5s 3or it= 3inding t0e5
inadeD.ate at best. %s environ5ental -olicy= an RPS is ine33icient by every econo5ic standard. It is a costly
5eas.re w0ose e33ects on e5issions are .ncertain= di33ic.lt to integrate wit0 existing environ5ental
reg.lation= and needlessly disr.-tive o3 generation invest5ents intended to co5-ly wit0 antici-ated
e5issions r.les. 4t0er -.r-orted conseD.ences are also D.estionable. %s 5acroecono5ic or ind.strial -olicy=
a national RPS cannot -ossibly NcreateN net increases in e5-loy5ent and r.ral areas t0at it will Nrevitali@eN
seldo5 need t0e 0el-. Clai5s t0at it is necessary to sti5.late red.ctions in -rod.ction cost lose t0eir 3orce in
a global econo5y= as do ex-ectations t0at it will -osition t0e 1.S. to do5inate t0e world renewables 5arket.
Rat0er t0an 3acilitating risk 5anage5ent= standard renewables contracts only trans3er it 3ro5 .tilities to
ca-tive c.sto5ers. National sec.rity is better advanced t0ro.g0 direct -olicies instead o3 co5-.lsory
invest5ent in renewables.