The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
ALEC Reinstates Attack On Renewable Energy Policies
By Jeff Deyette
Having failed completely in its attempt to repeal state renewable electricity standards (RES) during the spring 2013 legislative season, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is shifting gears. Their new strategy is more nuanced, but the goal remains the same: support their fossil fuel cronies by rolling back renewable energy policies. Fortunately, this latest scheme is likely doomed to fail as well.
This week, ALEC will host its annual meeting in Chicago, during which the group—who provides powerful corporations with behind-closed-doors access to legislators for the purpose of drafting ‘model legislation’ that serves their interests—will discuss the next phase of its ongoing effort to dismantle state renewable energy policies across the country. But first, ALEC leaders will likely have to explain their failures to their fossil fuel industry funders, including Koch Industries, Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Energy.
Just last year, ALEC made it very public that repealing state RES policies would be a legislative priority in 2013, doubling down on its recent efforts to roll back these standards. ALEC adopted model legislation, written by climate skeptics at the Heartland Institute and innocuously dubbed the “Electricity Freedom Act”, which had the sole purpose of repealing state RES policies. Along with the Heartland Institute and a host of fossil fuel-funded cohorts, ALEC launched a disinformation campaign targeting several state RES policies, including high-profile attacks in Kansas and North Carolina.
The good news is that ALEC’s efforts completely failed: not a single state RES was repealed. Instead, 14 new pro-renewable energy bills became law nationwide, including stronger RES targets in Colorado, Minnesota and Nevada.
How did ALEC misfire so badly? It appears they underestimated the depth of support for RES policies from both the general public and a diverse coalition of businesses, farmers, community and faith leaders, public health and environmental advocates, and policy makers of all political stripes. That popular and bipartisan support stems largely from the policy’s successful track record.
State-level renewable electricity standards, which require electric utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy in their power supplies, are a leading driver of renewable energy development in the U.S. today. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have these market-based policies, 17 of which have set targets of 20 percent or greater.
Contrary to misleading claims by ALEC, a recent UCS review of state RES policies shows that utilities are successfully meeting their renewable energy requirements with little or no additional cost to consumers, while supporting rapidly growing renewable energy industries that provide jobs and bring investments, tax revenues and other substantial economic benefits to local communities. In other words, the facts on the ground about the success and effectiveness of renewable energy policies are carrying far more weight with legislators than the fiction that ALEC and its allies have been peddling.
With last year’s strategy falling flat, ALEC now appears to be moving toward a more subtle scheme. According to one recent report, members of the group’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force will consider adopting new model legislation, called the Market-Power Renewables Act. Rather than an outright repeal approach, this model legislation essentially seeks to “phase out” state RES policies by counting voluntary purchases of renewable energy made by homeowners, businesses and other institutions toward a utility’s declining annual renewable energy requirements.
It’s a clever approach because it allows ALEC members to be “for” renewable energy (e.g., the voluntary market), while actually serving to slash utility requirements to shift toward cleaner, more sustainable power sources. But it too will likely falter.
The voluntary and compliance (e.g., RES) markets for renewable energy have effectively co-existed since 1997. Both are important drivers of new development and each has strengths that complement the other.
The compliance market offers long-term certainty to developers, which spurs investment and helps bring down technology costs. The RES serves as a floor, or minimum requirement for renewable energy, and ensures that all consumers share in the cost to bring the economic development, public health, climate, price stability and energy security benefits that they provide.
The voluntary market provides the opportunity for energy consumers of any size to go above and beyond what the compliance market requires. It is well established and thriving, with some of the nation’s largest corporations—including Intel, Microsoft, Whole Foods, Walmart and Staples—investing millions of dollars to be leaders in clean energy.
By allowing utilities to double count voluntary purchases toward their RES requirements, ALEC’s model legislation would shift the costs of RES compliance disproportionately away from all ratepayers and onto those voluntary market participants. What incentive then would a Walmart or Microsoft or even individual homeowners have to continue making voluntary purchases? ALEC’s Market-Power Renewables Act would therefore undermine both the voluntary and compliance markets, likely adding a whole set of new and powerful voices to the already strong coalition that has formed to oppose its anti-renewable energy legislative agenda.
What’s more, ALEC’s "new" proposal has actually been a bad idea for at least 14 years. Way back in 1999, the National Association of Attorneys General established Green Marketing Guidelines, which argued that the double counting of renewable energy credits (used to track purchases in both the voluntary and compliance markets) are deceptive and not acceptable. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission issued Green Guidelines that came to a similar conclusion.
It is likely that ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force members will ignore these obstacles, and instead move full steam ahead with endorsing the new model legislation. That’s unfortunate, because the real-world evidence about the success of the RES and the benefits of transitioning to a clean energy economy is clear. With any luck though, the Market-Power Renewables Act will end up in the trash can right next to the failed Electricity Freedom Act.
Visit EcoWatch’s RENEWABLE ENERGY page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
The climate crisis is a major concern for American voters with nearly 40 percent reporting the issue will help determine how they cast their ballots in the upcoming 2020 presidential election, according to a report compiled by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Of more than 1,000 registered voters surveyed on global warming, climate and energy policies, as well as personal and collective action, 38 percent said that a candidate's position on climate change is "very important" when it comes to determining who will win their vote. Overall, democratic candidates are under more pressure to provide green solutions as part of their campaign promises with 64 percent of Democrat voters saying they prioritize the issue compared with just 34 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
President Donald Trump has agreed to sign a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill that will help Americans still recovering from the flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have devastated parts of the country in the past two years. Senate Republicans said they struck a deal with the president to approve the measure, despite the fact that it did not include the funding he wanted for the U.S.-Mexican border, CNN reported.
"The U.S. Senate has just approved a 19 Billion Dollar Disaster Relief Bill, with my total approval. Great!" the president tweeted Thursday.
"There was a lot of devastation throughout the state," Governor Mike Parson said at a Thursday morning press conference, as NPR reported. "We were very fortunate last night that we didn't have more injuries than what we had, and we didn't have more fatalities across the state. But three is too many."