Photo Credit: AOC.gov
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (18) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
June 29, 2005

Senate Energy Bill Strong on Renewable Energy

Senate Passage of Energy Bill Offers Tentative Victory for Renewable Energy
by Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

On Tuesday, the United States Senate passed their version of a broad energy bill by a vote of 85-12. The comprehensive legislation contains many helpful policy items for renewable energy technologies. This includes the first federal residential and commercial tax credit for solar energy since 1982, the first-ever national renewable energy requirement on utilities and the first-ever federal policy to foster ocean and tidal energy technologies.

Over time, through judicious and insightful investments, many large gains that have redefined the energy playing field have started as non-traditional initiatives."

- Sean O'Neill, President of the newly formed Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC)

Renewable energy advocates, industry representatives and environmentalists appear largely pleased with the clean energy policy enacted by the Senate version. It's a tentative victory, however, as the bill will need to be reconciled with House version, a less favorable package teeming with contentious policy issues that will need to be resolved before a final bill can be sent to the president's desk.

While the following article will break down the Senate energy bill with respect to what each renewable energy technology received, it should be noted that one particularly strong policy item contains them all. The Senate voted for the first-ever federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a bill that will require that 10 percent of the electricity generated by investor-owned electric utilities be generated by renewable energy by the year 2020.

This policy approach, already adopted by 19 states, has been very successful at fostering renewable energy development and investment throughout the U.S. A national standard could help normalize what's been an effective but complicated patchwork of state regulation and clean energy policy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, one of its major supporters, considers the RPS the highlight of the Senate energy bill. The group cited a recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration showing that the item would reduce total electricity sector carbon dioxide emissions by 249 million metric tons (7.5 percent) by 2025 and reduce residential electricity prices by $2.7 billion.

Looking at specific technologies, solar secured a particularly noteworthy policy: the first tax credit since 1982. The Senate bill will give homeowners that purchase solar electric or water heating systems a credit worth up to $2,000, and boost incentives for businesses to install solar as well. The credit would be available to homeowners through the end of 2009, and to businesses through the end of 2011.

"A usable investment tax credit would bring solar costs over the tipping point in many areas of the country," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "More consumers would take a step towards energy independence by choosing solar power - and that means cleaner air, more jobs, and greater energy security for all."

Ocean Energy was arguably the unexpected, come-from-behind winner in the Senate's energy bill. A month ago, many lawmakers may not have even been aware of ocean energy technologies but a strong last minute lobbying and grassroots effort helped to secure helpful legislation for the nascent but promising technology.

Editor's Note: In full disclosure it should be noted that much of the grassroots success for ocean energy was achieved by the "Renewable Energy Action Network", a new advocacy project by RenewableEnergyAccess.com.

Amendments to the Senate's Energy Bill cover a number of items for ocean energy including renewable energy production incentives, Mandatory Purchase Requirements, and Production Tax Credits for energy produced from tidal, current and wave technologies. Additionally, the bill includes language, similar to the House version, that encourages the Secretary of Energy to provide funding for the assessment of ocean energy technologies. And the previously mentioned RPS requirement for electric utilities also now lists Ocean Energy as a qualified renewable energy technology.

"As we all know, even modest support can help to produce energy from cleaner, more reliable sources," said Sean O'Neill, President of the newly formed Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC). "Traditional energy players should, if anything, get behind the smallest of investments, with such bright and promising potential. Over time, through judicious and insightful investments, many large gains that have redefined the energy playing field have started as non-traditional initiatives."

In another water-intensive, but considerably more traditional renewable energy technology, the hydroelectric power industry secured favorable changes to the hydropower licensing process.

"By repairing the long-broken hydropower licensing process and providing incentives for new hydropower development at existing dams, the Senate energy bill creates a bright new future for the nation's leading renewable resource," said Linda Church Ciocci, Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association.

For wind power, the Senate energy bill includes a three-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) offering the industry a longer respite from the on-again, off-again nature of the tax credit. The credit remains unchanged -- it is maintained at its current value of 1.8 cents per kWh.

Not included in the bill this time is a new credit for small wind energy systems for individual homes, farms, or businesses. Last year the Senate energy bill included a 30 percent investment tax credit for such purchases, capped at $2,000 per system. While wind power advocates would have preferred federal support on such a policy, the Senate overwhelmingly voted down an amendment from Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) that would have had a devastating effect on new wind power developments, particularly those in offshore waters.

That same three-year PTC extension for wind power was also expanded to include geothermal energy. This again, will provide a fixed 10 year phase of tax credits on a per kWh basis.

According to Alyssa Kagel, Outreach & Research Officer for the Geothermal Energy Association, the Senate bill also provides incentives for public power systems and rural cooperatives through its "clean renewable energy bonds" provision. These provisions would result in revitalization of geothermal power in across the Western states by spurring new power projects from New Mexico to Alaska.

Provisions that update and revise the Geothermal Steam Act will encourage more "direct use" of geothermal by homes, communities, ranchers and businesses and for power producers will reduce high administrative cost of federal royalties by directing the Department of the Interior to move to a gross proceeds royalty system.

Biomass and biofuels landed a host of policy items -- particularly those favorable to the agricultural sectors.

The most notable items for biofuels is the Renewable Fuels Standard calling for a minimum of eight billion gallons of ethanol to be used by 2012. Currently, the U.S. uses less than 4 billion gallons. In addition to an 8 billion gallon RFS, the tax provisions contain an important update of the small ethanol producer program, extension of biodiesel tax credit through 2010, and establishment of a tax credit for the cost of installing clean fuel refueling equipment, such as an E85 fuel pump.

For biomass, the Senate bill amends the current R&D initiative (subject to appropriations) from $14 million to $200 million from FY06-FY2010 (total of $1 billion). Another amendment creates a reverse auction program for cellulosic biofuel with a goal to produce first 1 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel by 2012. For a full list of biomass and biofuels amendments included in the Senate energy bill see the link following this story.

In summary, like many comprehensive bills enacted by Congress, there seems to be something for everyone (including many fossil and nuclear energy items, which will not be addressed here). The real challenge for renewable energy technologies is for these policy items to survive the far more secretive process of consolidation between the House and Senate energy versions of the energy bill.
Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (18)
 
No image available
June 29, 2005
Neal,

Check you numbers on Ethanol production. Everything that I've read about Ethanol suggests that it has a positive energy balance (21-34%) and requires a fossil fuel input of 0.09 BTU for every BTU produced. The fossil fuel inputs will continue to go down over time with the development of more RE sources and improvements in the distillation process and crop production.
Comment 1 of 18
June 29, 2005
I would comment, but commenting right now is a bit meaningless since no laws have yet been enacted. Lets wait until the final bill gets churned out.

Remember money rules, and the wealth is held in hydrocarbon interests.

.....Bill
Comment 2 of 18
No image available
June 29, 2005
I agree that 10% is low - but its a start. We could hold out for more and still be arguing in 2020 on what the percentage should be. I live in a state that has strong renewable energy support and reaching 10% will be easy but for other states this is a big goal - and I'm happy we're at least getting that.
Comment 3 of 18
No image available
June 29, 2005
neil-
Currently utilities in non-RPS states have no incentive to buy renewable energy. Cost wise we are not yet competitive and the most mature renewables (wind and solar) have issues with constant delivery which coal does not encounter.

A national RPS would motivate reluctant utilities to purchase renewable energy and thereby drive the price of renewable energy down. One of the main obstacles to building a new power plant is getting a power purchase agreement.

China already has a 10% national rps - isn't it time we had one aswell.
Comment 4 of 18
No image available
June 29, 2005
This bill is a joke and should be criticized, not lauded. Most of the funding will go to Ethanol production (something that takes more petroleum to produce than we save by using the fuel), nuclear energy, and so-called clean coal technology.

There is so little actual money going toward renewable energy, as this article (one among many) shows: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Energy.html

What I found most useless was the requirement for a renewable mix of energy by all utilities: 10% by 2020.....who cares? This is a meaningful requirement? This bill is just another stalling tactic like ethanol, hydrogen cars, and the fabulous clear skies legislation that further defines the president/congress/senate as laggards and stallers who visciously afflict our environment with harmful legistation.
Comment 5 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Neal-
Raising the cost of coal power plants is a good way to entice people to move to renewables (carbon trading would be a start) but to raise the costs through lawsuits would just push those costs onto consumers and create antagonism towards renewables.

Also, at the rate of growth of electricity demand we don't have much spare room to reduce any power source.

It would be better for renewable energy and for electricity consumers if a rps built up the use of renewables as their cost dropped.
Comment 6 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Hey Tripp,

I used DOE articles when ethanol research begin to hit my radar...but, I stopped after I saw this fuel from another perspective (one developed in Lovin's Natural Capitalism and the film The Corporation to name a few): the idea of looking at the entire system of production.

What I find missing in these articles are the externalities (the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production). Businesses in general are famous for "outsourcing" externalities, i.e., auto industry and its green house forming gasses that come from autos.

Given this, most research I find to be incomplete when looking at ethanol as a realistic fuel source in place of gasoline.

Cheers,

Neal
Comment 7 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
At least one permaculturist takes a more optimistic view of ethanol production. He makes a good argument, in my opinion.

http://www.communitysolution.org/04conf/af1.html
Comment 8 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
I live in Pennsylvania, and have researched the cost of installing a PV system for my private residence. Even with incentives from the local sustainable development fund, I will need more than $20,000.00 out-of-pocket to install a PV system. I wonder if the Senate understands that a $2,000.00 tax break is hardly an incentive.
Comment 9 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Neal,

Check out the following link. It is a collection of DOE articles written over the past few years:

http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

-- Tripp
Comment 10 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Hi Terri,

lawsuits against environmental blights (coal-fired plants) like those in the east will force them into compliance...regardless of an rpf. Why give them a free ride like the current president does in allowing them to expand without upgrading their pollution systems? Instead force them to add renewables at the state level through legislation and then break them with net meetering. Then we won't need their fautian bargins.

I don't want to waste tax dollars on coal when viable alternatives like a Solar Towers exist: http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/gruenstein2.htm

Approaches like this are exactly what we need...not another power plant that serves to pollute and suck more money away for shareholders at the expense of the environment and people.

Neal
Comment 11 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Patzek, a UC Berkeley geoengineering professor, also asserts this in the same article:

"Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem," he says. "Corn is not 'free energy.'"

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.
Comment 12 of 18
No image available
June 30, 2005
Hi Tripp,

In following research, I came across this study at UC Berkeley that contadicts all articles suggesting that ethanol is a useful substitute. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good. "In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

much more information is available in the article.

N
Comment 13 of 18
No image available
July 1, 2005
The Renewable technologies supported by the Senate's new energy bill will be able to capitalize on their incentives before the old technologies get out of the gate. That is the advantage of renewables in today's world, they go up quick and start providing investors with a return NOW, not an uncertain 10 years down the road. Let's pass this thing and blow their doors off!
Comment 14 of 18
No image available
July 1, 2005
Hello Trip,

Consider the following: New Study: Ethanol Not a Sustainable Path to Petroleum Independence
1 July 2005

A new study of CO2 emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of corn- and sugarcane- ethanol production in the US and Brazil concludes that despite the net energy and CO2 benefits offered by the fuel, using ethanol as a full substitute for gasoline is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly once the ecological footprint values are factored in.

The researchers also concluded, however, that as part of a diverse energy and fuel portfolio of alternatives to petroleum, " the ethanol option probably should not be wholly disregarded."

The paper, "Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint," is to be published in the July 2005 issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/new_study_ethan.html#more

Neal
Comment 15 of 18
No image available
July 2, 2005
Neal,

Actually, I believe several of those articles that I mentioned point out the use of external sources (including Nuclear and Hydro) in the determiniation of inputs and outputs. I don't think that anyone is saying that ethanol alone (or biodiesel) is going to solve our transportation sector energy problems. Also, did those articles take into account the cellulose ethanol angle? That's where the real bang for the buck is going to come from. Using agricultural residue to produce usable enery is going to be a very big market in the mid-term (hopefully sooner).

Cheers, T
Comment 16 of 18
No image available
July 5, 2005
While the Senate and these written Public debates continue, some fundamental Financial and Lifecycle issues are being missed.
1. Public knowledge of Wind and Wave "plants" to create energy usually omits the huge reinvestment in Power line infrastructure to carry the Power to the point of use.
2. All such infrastructure "improvement" will be passed on in your Electric Bill.
3. Point of Use Solar and Small Wind generators can reduce the infrastructure burden.
4. Some Public Solar and Co-Gen installations are quietly being contracted by the Local Utilities and a Part of their Back-up and construction AVOIDANCE planning ( to their credit).
5. Kudos to the folks at Renewable Energy for supporting the Ocean Energy work.
6. Renewable Energy Access articles are weakest in the details to help the public, and even this audience, advance our knowledge.
Comment 17 of 18
No image available
November 29, 2007
Neal,
i want to learn more but your link is broken and
i cant figure out the title for the article
Walter
wlhudson@pacbell.net
Comment 18 of 18
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
San Luis Valley Energy Fair 3TIER ReflecTech, Inc. Schüco OutBack Power Systems POWER-GEN India and Central Asia
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo