Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Renewable Energy Industry Looks to Capitialize on Momentum in Washington

March 31, 2009 | 7 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] Following the political and monetary victories for the renewable energy industry that were contained in the U.S. stimulus package, which passed earlier this year, the industry is hoping to use the momentum it has gained to push through more changes to federal policy that will grow not only renewable energy production, but the economy.

A recent public opinion survey found that 84 percent of Americans support a national RPS. Later this spring, House and Senate committees are scheduled to take up energy legislation that includes a national RPS.

Last week, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) joined more than 220 other groups in signing a letter to Congress that endorses a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) as a way to ensure the investment tens of billions of dollars in the industry and the creation of thousands of jobs.

A total of 226 companies and organizations have signed the letter, which urges Congress to adopt a national RPS this year. Legislation introduced in both the House and Senate would require all states to generate at least 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

“With the strong focus on the economy in Washington right now, it’s important for Congress to recognize the importance of the RES to our economic recovery,” said Denise Bode, CEO of AWEA. We have seen how using more renewable energy creates jobs — wind created 35,000 jobs last year — and several studies have shown that a national RES will lower consumer electric bills as well. A national renewable electricity standard is one of the most important steps we can take to encourage businesses to invest in clean energy and create thousands of new jobs right here in the U.S.”

A recent public opinion survey found that 84 percent of Americans support a national RPS. Later this spring, House and Senate committees are scheduled to take up energy legislation that includes a national RPS.

Click here to read a copy of the letter.

Also looking to push the renewable energy agenda in Washington this week, T. Boone Pickens will and his Picken's Plan organization are organizing the first Virtual March on Washington. So far, the group has more than three million people signed up for its virtual petition.

The march will take place this Wednesday through Friday, during which the group will use the internet and traditional means to contact members of congress and other elected officials to ask them to consider more renewable energy legislation before the Easter recess.

For more information on the Virtual March, click here.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Hydropower, Ocean Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power

7 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 7

mike-holly-17241

April 1, 2009

Propaganda. This article should read: Wind Energy Industry Looks to Capitialize on Momentum in Washington. Our renewable energy company opposes renewable portfolio standards unless combined with feed-in tariffs. The current use of competitive bidding has allowed utility monopolies to rig the bids for their own generators, affiliates and even friends, especially those in the wind industry (while their regulator friends sit on their hands).

Comment
2 of 7

dana-cole-146559

April 1, 2009

Feed in Tariffs are the only way we can realistically reach any RPS. They need to happen, and the only way to make them happen is with a grass roots movement...we're up against the rich, powerful, and established.

Comment
3 of 7

matt-schwartz-164519

April 1, 2009

What are feed-in tarrifs?

Comment
4 of 7

jeff-wishart-163599

April 2, 2009

Mike, I have been reading your comments on this subject, and you sound like a bit of a zeolot. I understand your frustration, if what you said about the bidding process that prevented your company from competing is true. But ranting in every post is no way to convince people.

In any event, I believe it's a false dichotomy to say that we have to choose between either an RPS or a FIT or that we have to have both simulataneously or not at all. We should be supporting the passage of the federal RPS, and then we can get on with the business of lobbying so that a federal FIT gets passed. Why are we turning this into a circular firing squad amongst people who want to see more renewable energy projects?

Comment
5 of 7

mike-holly-17241

April 3, 2009

Matt, feed-in tariffs are prices set by the government that electric utilities are obligated to pay for renewable electricity from all other suppliers in their region.

Jeff, I don't care what I sound like to you. I will continue to complain everywhere and anywhere I can until utility monopolies can no longer block my company from the marketplace. Since RPS simply requires utility monopolies to generate their own renewable energy, it offers my company nothing and I will continue to oppose it.

Comment
6 of 7

jeff-wishart-163599

April 5, 2009

Mike, you should care what you sound like to me. If you cause a person like me who is inherently sympathetic to your plight to turn off, then imagine your success in convincing the rest of the masses that you hope will be your customers. As a businessman, you should understand that marketing is crucial to commercial success, and alienating your customer base just isn't smart.

I must also take issue with your assertion that an RPS "simply requires utility monopolies to generate their own renewable energy". That is untrue: what the RPS does is require the utility to provide a specified proportion of the electricity from renewable energy sources. It does not specify that the electricity must be generated by the utility itself.

In principle, an RPS can result in a utility buying electricity from hundreds of DG producers that have power purchase agreements (PPAs) with the utility. I agree that under this system that large producers with lobbying capacity and contacts within the utility might be more likely to succeed in getting the PPA, thereby locking out the smaller producer. So I happen to agree with you that a FIT would be preferable. But I see the possibility for the two policies to function well together.

So we should focus our efforts into getting both an RPS and a FIT passed, and you should try building bridges rather than blowing up ones that you don't like.

Comment
7 of 7

david-richardson-175183

April 7, 2009

I am with Jeff on this.
Messages need to be heared to make an impact.
Burning bridges is a poor way to build a path forward.
Support both RPS and FIT.

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!