Currently 35 states have renewable electricity standards (RES), and 16 of these states recognize the power produced by forest products companies. Given the significant amount of carbon-neutral renewable energy that papermakers and wood products manufacturers generate—28.5 million megawatt hours annually—our industry makes an important contribution to our country’s renewable energy base and states rightly rely on it to help make their RES efforts a success.

Ensuring that our industry’s contributions to renewable energy continue and expand is why it is important for a federal RES to include the forest products industry’s power and make it eligible for tradable credits. Without this, the federal government winds up treating new renewable biomass energy producers preferentially to existing ones, despite that they both compete for the same existing supply of wood biomass.

The key to avoiding such an arbitrary selection of winners and losers is to ensure that both existing and new producers are treated equally, and that the definition of biomass is sufficiently broad so as to cover the wood that forest products companies currently use, while also providing the necessary environmental protections to ensure that wood biomass qualifying for an RES is produced according to sustainable forest management practices.

Leaving forest products companies’ power out of an RES would not only shortchange the power that can contribute to it and make it successful, but would also create an unlevel playing field for existing renewable energy generators and throw up significant barriers to their future financial viability. We are encouraged that federal policymakers are listening to this concern. The final bill passed by Congress should adequately address these issues if it hopes to create a strong and fair RES.

The renewable electricity mandate will put a tremendous and undue burden on American families already suffering through a recession. Very simply, it forces us to pay more for a sub-par product. So, can it pass? Maybe, if Americans aren’t told the real consequences. But should it? Absolutely not.

The New York Times recently reported that “wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated from a traditional coal plant.”[1] Energy Secretary Stephen Chu told the New York Times that solar technology would have to get five times bettertobe competitive in today’s energy market.[2] The 29 states that have already mandated renewable electricity are home to electricity prices 38 percent higher than those without. And according to this map, most states would have to more than quadruple the amount of electricity they get from renewables to meet the mandate’s 20 percent requirement. Yet, here we are, forcing Americans to pay significantly more for a product that even its champions admit is intermittent, unreliable, and wildly expensive.

When governments mandate the use of renewables or energy efficiency, it’s not just electricity ratepayers who get stuck with the bill. Inefficient renewables do more than just increase the price of electricity. Renewable mandates stick it to the American taxpayer, who foots the bill for the government subsidies on which renewables depend. And most of all, mandates make it more expensive to do business in America. That means our products become less competitive in the global marketplace. It also means that jobs will move overseas as businesses look for cheap operating costs.

For over thirty years, we have heard that affordable renewable electricity is just around the corner and needs only a few more years of taxpayer subsidies before they’re ready for widespread public use. So far, that hasn’t been the case. Mandating their use is premature and costly at best. At worst, it is unnecessary and disastrous for the many American families already living on the margins who may have to choose between paying their electricity bill and buying groceries.

[1] Matthew Wald, “Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession,” New York Times, March 29, 2009 (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html).

[2] John Broder and Matthew Wald, “Big Science Role Is Seen in Global Warming Cure,” New York Times, February 11, 2009 (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/us/politics/12chu.html).

The latest renewable energy standard in the Waxman-Markey Bill (20 percent by 2020) would be an important step forward for creating high-paying domestic jobs while reducing our reliance on fossil-fuels. The National Wildlife Federation would like to see a stronger RES, as this proposal would allow states to meet as much as 8 percent through energy efficiency. This is expected to result in slightly more renewable electricity than what the existing state requirements would accomplish in the best case.

While both efficiency and renewable energy create more jobs than similar investments in fossil or nuclear energy, NWF would like to see separate and stronger targets for both (20 percent renewables and 15 percent efficiency).

Almost all states can be expected to meet the current Waxman-Markey targets, including the Southeast with its abundance of biomass resources.

It's also important to note that the RES targets are a national floor, allowing states to set higher standards, as is the case now. Twenty-six states have an RES now, with several increasing their targets after initial progress, including Colorado, Delaware, Maine, and Minnesota.

On the one hand, the U.S. wind energy industry is hopeful because the draft bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee recognizes the importance of a national Renewable Electricity Standard. It is, after all, the most immediate and direct way to create jobs and reduce carbon emissions. So we thank Chairmen Waxman and Markey for their efforts. On the other hand, we are disappointed that the renewable energy target in the bill could be as low as 12 percent by 2020—less than one-half the level proposed by President Obama and Chairman Markey. From a jobs standpoint, by lowering the standard and limiting additional deployment, well over 100,000 jobs are being left on the cutting room floor.

It is clear from the election results this past November and numerous polls that Americans across the political spectrum put renewable energy deployment near the top of their list of policy priorities for very good reasons. The voters are right, because wind and other renewable energy technologies are one of very few options that can be deployed on a large scale quickly in this critical decade to reverse greenhouse gas emissions growth and create new domestic manufacturing jobs.

There is an interenational piece of this as well. America is competing for these new manufacturing jobs with 37 other countries, including China, and these countries have firm renewable electricity commitments in place. We look forward to working with Chairmen Waxman and Markey and the House leadership as the process moves forward to ensure that the RES provision is strengthened.

1. The goal of ACES is to create climate and energy security (not renewable energy, per se)
2. The cost of ACES rises if we choose mandate over market in meeting the ACES’ goal
3. Renewables already have PTC (2.1 cents/kwh for 10 years) or ITC/Grant (30% of capital cost)
4. Efficiency, Offsets, Nuclear, and CCS have incentives too - but the playing field is not level
5. Some states might lose jobs from ACES that aren’t replaceable by renewables
6. Therefore, renewable portfolio standards should be set by States (as Jim Rogers has said)
7. States prompted the RPS issue in large part due to lack of federal action to cap emissions
8. Give RPS back to the folks who created it - and pass a shorter (readable) cap & trade bill

"Does the proposal go far enough to promote the use of renewable electricity?"

The proposed mandate goes 12-20 percent too far.

If you are going to have cap and trade (and I'm not in favor), then mandates are redundant at the very best. It is more likely the mandates will make reaching the targets more costly and less efficient. Renewable electricity may not be the best way to reduce CO2 emissions--even if it is only 12 percent of power.

If renewables are the most efficient way to reduce, they will be the cheapest. If they are the cheapest way to reduce, then that is the way producers and consumers will go as they struggle to keep under the caps. That is the whole point of cap and trade in the first place.

It's clear the bill's authors don't believe cap and trade will work.