In terms of moving toward an American energy future that emphasizes reliability and practicality, Senator Jeff Bingaman’s introduction of a new CES bill would seem to be a step in the right direction. While the specifics of the proposal are sure to change, a broad standard that includes a wider range of energy technologies, as opposed to earlier, more restrictive versions of renewable portfolio standards, provides significantly less sticker shock to the American electricity consumer.

The problem is a debate on clean energy, as opposed to a debate on renewable energy, is one that should have been had in earnest two years ago. Instead, in an effort to push politically popular technologies such as solar and wind, the congressional energy debate seemed to overlook technologies with much greater practical importance for America’s long-term energy future. This includes emission-free nuclear power, a technology made commercially viable by our nation that provides a key piece to the energy puzzle; fossil fuel technologies that have made coal-fired power production exponentially cleaner in the past twenty years, with the possibility through carbon capture of making even greater gains; and hydropower, an often overlooked technology that is capable of adding significant megawatts to the grid with little to no environmental impact.

The truth is that no American energy future exists without contributions from some combination of these sources. To keep pace with energy demand while maintaining the reliability and price that consumers deserve, the answer can’t simply be ‘all of the above’; it must be ‘more of the above.’

Today, without a CES, the first major development in American nuclear power is taking place in east Georgia with the construction of two units at Plant Vogtle. Soon, the Tennessee Valley Authority will commence completion of its long-mothballed Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in north Alabama. Without legislation incentivizing or demanding it, our nation might have taken its first steps toward a nuclear renaissance. Meanwhile, environmental controls have drastically reduced major emissions from our most abundant energy resource, coal, with major emissions down more than 65% from twenty years ago. Carbon capture technology, in only its very early stages, could reduce those figures far more.

Without a CES, efforts are being made across the country to develop new hydropower technologies. PACE recently visited with Free Flow Power, a firm pioneering underwater hydropower technology for use in the Mississippi River. Because of its energy source, this project promises clean power with reliability greater than other renewables such as wind and solar. In other words, the marketplace is actively developing solutions to tomorrow’s energy landscape, without the hands of Congress guiding the way.

Aside from refocusing the debate on more practical solutions, a CES is superior to earlier proposals such as RPS in another important way: it creates fewer regional disparities in energy resources. Earlier versions of portfolio mandates accounted poorly for regional energy resources, creating clear winners and losers depending on geography. At the least, a well-designed CES would be broad enough to allow multiple solutions to the same problem, rather than trying to turn the rest of the U.S. into California.

If the debate generated by a CES is to be an honest one, it must be a factual one. It must be a debate that acknowledges that American energy has become remarkably cleaner in the past twenty years; that the marketplace, not government mandates, are driving today’s ingenuity in the energy sector; that consumer cost and grid reliability are not of less concern than environmental goals; and that no sensible energy policy moves us forward by leaving nuclear and fossil fuels behind.

We cannot focus solely on rising fuel prices because our energy policy involves much more than just gasoline. Putting all our eggs in one basket only hurts the United States in the long run.

Senator Bingaman’s visionary plan would allow us to compete in a growing global economy. It would not only diversify our energy portfolio, but give time for clean, renewable energy to gain traction. It gives utility companies three years to comply with the 2015 standards that require a minimum of 24% clean energy and increase 3% annually through 2035. At that time, 84% of electric energy sold by utility companies would be required to be clean energy!

But many utility companies like Arizona Public Service have already taken steps to address these issues because they understand that clean energy must be a part of our nation’s energy portfolio. We’ve seen this with SmartPower’s Arizona Solar Challenge, which challenges Arizona communities to adopt solar on 5% of their homes by the year 2015. Since the program’s launch a year ago, half of our targeted communities have already met or exceeded the 5% community goal, with the remaining half near the program milestone.

So what we’re seeing in Arizona is true nationwide. Solar power is not some far off distant “possibility.” Indeed, Solar power today is real. It’s here and it’s working.

This common sense approach that comes with no additional federal costs should lend some bipartisan support, but since a similar measure stalled in 2010 – during another vitriolic political climate, one in which we find ourselves again – I remain realistic about its challenges we face in this election cycle.

However, we must rise above the climate of political inaction and focus on our future. Countless countries are speeding past us with renewable energy investment plans of their own and they aren’t going to wait for us to catch up. This measure would spur job creation in every state across the country and rejuvenate our clean energy economy.

But if Senator Bingaman’s goal is to create a conversation about energy use in the United States, he’s done it. Now it’s our turn to do something with it.

We really do not have high gasoline prices. In Istanbul, the price of gasoline is about $9.60 s per gallon. Here in Washington it is about $3.80 dollars. In Asmara, Eritrea, gasoline is over $9.50 per gallon. In Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Oslo, Athens, Rome, and Tokyo it is over $8 per gallon.

Our gasoline tax is about 12 percent of our overall gas price. In Istanbul, the gasoline tax is 67 percent of the price of the gasoline. In the EU, the government takes in more as taxes when selling refined oil products than OPEC makes from selling the oil to the EU.

So, shall we stop kidding ourselves about our “high” gasoline taxes? Our gasoline prices comparatively low relative to almost every developed country. The only one that gets even close is Canada, our great friends to the north.

Our natural gas prices are much lower per MMBTU than in the EU and through most of developed Asia. We are experiencing a natural gas and oil revolution that could bring us as close to energy independence that any of us could ever believe would ever happen in only two decades from now.

Shale gas and oil, and oil sands could save our country tens of trillions in money that otherwise would have been spent overseas on importing oil and gas in the next decades. Shale oil and gas, and the oil sands could greatly help resolve our federal, state and local government debt issues on many levels. The hydrocarbon revolution could bring a huge number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as ancillary industries to places where these resources exist. In addition, these resources exist in places like Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and over a huge swath of this country.

Alternative energy systems, such as wind and solar are making breathtaking strides in reducing costs of energy production here, in China and beyond. The electric car is a lot closer than you might think. A lot of that success is not from the government, but from venture capital in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Sure, the governments can help at the state, local and federal levels. However, for sustainable energy to be sustainable it has to walk on its own. Many companies, such as Tesla, are showing this is possible. Others, such as Bright, who tried to rely on the government, failed.

This is not to say that proper and well-considered government programs cannot help. ARPA-E is a good example of this. Some DOD projects directed at energy efficiency and more are quite good. The work of our national labs and DOE research stations are adding much to the solutions that we need.

However, a blanket pronouncement that we need to choose this energy system over another simply will not work in this political environment or any political environment that might be predicted – barring some huge crises or energy tragedies in the future.

If such crises happen, such as a catastrophic war in the Arabian Gulf that spreads and morphs to other places in the world then, as people in DC like to say, all options will be on the table. However, this time it will be for much quicker energy change. The fastest we could move would be toward our own natural resources. The most effective move in that catastrophic environment would be toward shale oil and gas. In the long run we will likely move other sources of energy, but this has to happen in its natural course.

The more distortions that are thrown into the system without considering the potential feedbacks, costs and unintended consequences, the more likely our economy and our people will suffer from the economic pangs and pains of imposed ideology—in every direction, not just in the extreme environmentalist one.

Nevertheless, all of this will likely be moot. Congress is dysfunctional and the political will amongst most of the public for renewable energy standards amongst the public is thin and weak.

The public is clearly more interested in their immediate needs for jobs and economic hope for the future after a very difficult and unstable time.

This is the wrong time to try to impose such standards. They will not pass anyway. Maybe more states and localities can look at these, especially those not in the shale or sands oil and gas regions and then, over a long time, maybe 40-50 years the economics, technologies and politics of the time will correspond to make such renewable standards yet again moot. The change will already be there via the profit motive and just plain common sense.

The change to new energy systems will eventually occur. Patience, my dear lobbyists and NGOs, is golden. Events and circumstances need to be right for these things to happen. In addition, they are not right in the present moment. My children and grandchildren will see the change. And so much the better, but for the right reasons.

(These comments were submitted by Marchant Wentworth, Deputy Legislative Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program.)

Chairman Bingaman has turned a proposal by President Obama into legislation that is a welcome step toward moving the U.S. away from its reliance on coal and toward renewable and other low carbon energy. Chairman Bingaman has been the Senate’s stalwart champion for a clean energy future. He is to be commended for forging this new approach.

“Unfortunately, special interests may use this occasion to accelerate baseless claims about the economic impact of energy mandates. Study after study has shown that dramatically increasing our use of renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal and biomass is a quick, affordable and effective way to create jobs and reduce carbon and other air pollutants.

“Renewable energy is delivering more power than ever and is one of our nation’s true manufacturing success stories. By the end of last year, the wind industry alone reported installing over 6,800 megawatts, growing 31 percent over the previous year and representing approximately $14 billion in new investment. More than 400 wind turbine manufacturing facilities in 43 states produce over 60 percent of the components installed in the US.

“We remain concerned that giving tradable credits to mature industries like natural gas and nuclear power would dilute the clean energy standard and reduce the amount of renewables deployed in the near term. All economic reports indicate that the natural gas industry is doing very well and does not need the incentives contained in this bill. When combined with the concerns around hydraulic fracturing and fugitive emissions, there are plenty of reasons to reconsider these provisions.

“Energy efficiency is our cheapest and most readily available energy source. For technical reasons, the legislation could not accommodate the full suite of energy efficiency measures, but we welcome the inclusion of combined heat and power systems that hold so much promise for energy savings – particularly in the manufacturing-rich section of the Midwest.

“Given the stalemates that have plagued this Congress, the Clean Energy Standard faces an uncertain future. When Congress is ready to put aside polarizing politics, this bill could re-start the conversation about an energy policy that will create jobs, reduce carbon pollution and save consumers money on energy bills.”

We applaud Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and co-sponsors for working to advance renewable power and identifying pathways to help make manufacturers and industry more competitive in the global economy, as proposed in the Clean Energy Standard legislation introduced last week. This bill is a critical step toward a pragmatic policy to enhance our energy independence and security, create jobs, and reduce emissions that pose health and environmental risks.

Investing in and promoting clean energy adoption is also a matter of global competitiveness. Our research shows that where strong domestic standards are implemented, private finance and investment follow. A robust national policy would send a strong, long-term signal to the marketplace that America is serious about renewable technologies and committed to winning the global clean energy race.

As Sen. Bingaman noted in the news release announcing the measure, "This legislation will … allow every region to deploy clean energy using its own resources. It also will make sure that we do all of this in a way that supports home-grown innovation and manufacturing and keeps us competitive in the global clean energy economy.”

Among the many laudable components are provisions promoting technologies that help companies capture waste heat and use it for both electricity generation and heating purposes. Industrial energy efficiency will help American companies reduce waste, save money, and become more competitive in the global marketplace. This is a commonsense way to create jobs, and it deserves broad, bipartisan support.

Manufacturing and power generation create large amounts of heat, which typically escapes through smokestacks into the atmosphere. Hundreds of facilities across the United States are already using technical innovations to capture this energy for other purposes. Altogether, utilizing harnessed heat contributes 85 gigawatts of electricity capacity annually, or almost 9 percent of the nation’s output. Greater energy efficiency for the industrial and manufacturing sector will:

• Create new American jobs. Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates up to one million highly skilled jobs could be realized.
• Spur private investment. Up to $200 billion in new private financing in the United States could be attained, according to Oak Ridge.
• Save money. Help make American companies more efficient and competitive.

In addition, industrial efficiency allows us to continue utilizing natural gas, coal, and other domestic fuel sources—with lower emissions. Finally, it helps reduce pressure on our commercial electricity grid, making it more reliable. This is an important part of a comprehensive policy and has rightly earned its place among technologies supported in the proposed Clean Energy Standard.

Most of the states have established their own clean/renewable energy standards so it’s not clear why we need a national standard. Indeed, if market forces are allowed to drive fuel choice by utilities, the overall portfolio of power generation will become “cleaner” over time without additional federal mandates.

America is fortunate in possessing a practically limitless trove of shale gas that is becoming the fuel of choice for power generation. Though not a completely carbon-free energy source, GHG emissions associated with using natural gas as a boiler fuel are but a fraction of those produced when burning fuel oil or coal. What’s more, natural gas prices are projected to remain low for an extended period.

By contrast, requiring that utilities increase their dependence on wind and solar will have huge impacts on taxpayers. Today, investment and production tax credits amount to $776 for every megawatt of solar and $56 for every megawatt of wind power. What’s more, because these power sources are intermittent, utilities must continue to add gas-fired peaking units to meet demand when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Senator Bingaman’s proposal is a distraction from what should be the focus of energy policy: crafting a comprehensive, domestically-focused strategy that encourages the development of all of our resources, including fossil fuels. For the first time since President Nixon talked about energy independence 40 years ago, we stand at the threshold of achieving this milestone. Building the Keystone XL pipeline, allowing more drilling on federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, speeding up the permitting process for shallow- and deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and limiting the EPA’s oversight of hydraulic fracturing are important steps that can help get us there.

Removing market barriers and providing a competitive structure that allows the nation to reap the significant economic and energy benefits associated with fully utilizing the nation’s solar energy resources is smart public policy. As America’s demand for energy continues to grow, access to an abundant, diverse and affordable domestic supply of energy is essential to our future prosperity.

Enactment of a national Clean Energy Standard (CES) would provide the broad policy framework that is needed to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the marketplace that America is fully committed to developing the entirety of the nation’s energy resources while helping to meet our growing demand for electricity. Experience as the state level has shown that a well-structured CES that deploys solar energy can be an effective policy mechanism. And the marketplace certainty associated with a national CES would not only further enhance our ability to utilize existing resources, but provide the impetus for new technology breakthroughs and the development of new domestic sources of energy.

Senator Bingaman should be commended for furthering this important discussion. Now more than ever, there is a need for a cohesive and strategic approach to energy policy in America. A well-crafted CES should certainly be part of this discussion.

I'll take these questions in reverse order. The most important thing that Washington can do with respect to gasoline prices is on the demand side through vehicle fuel efficiency standards. And the Administration is doing just that with the standards it proposed this past fall and expects to promulgate later this year, with broad support in the auto industry and the American public. On the supply slide, the United States has fewer options, because we are a much smaller fraction of global oil supply than we are of global demand. However, there are some things we can do, such as promoting domestic oil production using carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery. These actions, as well as promoting non-petroleum energy sources for our vehicles -- none of which are short-term fixes – will help reduce our vulnerability to gasoline price swings and supply disruptions. But in a global market, we by ourselves cannot provent gasoline price swings. Pretending otherwise distracts from the serious work required to establish a genuinely productive energy policy.

The Bingaman Clean Energy Standard (CES) is an important next step in a years-long debate over how best to ensure diversity in electricity sources, compete in the growing global market for clean technology, and reduce the pollution that threatens public health and contributes to climate change. Clean energy standards were adopted by a few states and proposed by Republican Senators a couple of years ago, promoted by the President last year, and this year have their first good opportunity for a serious detailed examination, in the planned hearings on the Bingaman bill. Like virtually all the important problems faced by our country these days, the challenges being tackled by a CES surely won't be resolved in Washington this year. But the Bingaman bill gives us an excellent opportunity to move a lot closer to their eventual resolution.

Every policy, or lack of policy, involves trade-offs, and the Bingaman CES bill is no exception. I think the most challenging trade-off is found in the bill's treatment of natural gas. Because the bill would establish a clean energy performance standard and let the market decide how best to meet it, rather than tilt the table towards specific technologies, natural gas could continue to dominate energy markets. I tend to think that, as long as the environmentasl performance standard is ambitious, it is better to let the market sort things out, rather than to base policy on predictions of technological change. But I am also thinking about how we can drive innovation in technologies that may cost more now but have the potential to cost less later. This is a question I want to focus on carefully as we examine the bill over the next few months.

Third Way has long supported a clean energy standard as a way to help get America moving on clean energy. Such a policy would enable the United States to compete in the $2.3 trillion global clean energy market, reduce pollution, and accelerate innovation. Chairman Bingaman’s Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 is a very important step in that direction. The bill is technology-neutral, giving utilities a variety of options in how they choose to comply. It also provides businesses with the long-term certainty they need to invest in clean energy.

Unfortunately, the current Congress will not go down in history for passing thoughtful and responsible legislation—or any legislation at all. Even so, this bill accelerates a very important conversation about the need for a long-term strategy to meet our modern energy needs. The Bingaman CES embraces a truly all-of-the-above strategy that promotes renewables, as well as combined heat and power, natural gas, and nuclear energy. This technology-neutral approach will minimize the cost of reducing pollution and allow different regions to harness the resources that are most economical for them to accomplish a national goal.

The fact that 37 states now have goals or requirements for increased generation of clean energy shows there is strong support for the concept of a CES. Yet the diversity of these state requirements shows the importance of giving utilities as many tools as possible to meet that standard. As the debate on a CES continues, Third Way would advocate ensuring that states are able to retain flexibility in managing standards that address their unique energy resource circumstances and expands the inclusion of efficiency measures.

Bingaman’s proposal also provides industry with the certainty it needs to make long-term investment decisions. New electricity generation is expensive, with costs often reaching into the billions of dollars for a single plant. These facilities can take years to build and can be operated for decades. To make such large investments with long-term payoffs, utilities need certainty as to what the government will require of them and the confidence that the rules of the game won’t be changed. A CES similar to Chairman Bingaman’s would provide a clear market signal for utilities to move forward with desperately needed modernizations.

In the modern global economy, the nations that thrive will have advanced infrastructure, innovative industries, and reduced pollution. Even China has a plan in place to increase its use of clean energy in order to maintain its aggressive economic growth. The United States cannot compete if we do not set high standards for our private sector to reach so that we can remain the world’s leading economic power. Business as usual will not get the job done. A well-designed CES will allow America to harness and invest in its diverse energy resources, and provide the nation with the economic efficiencies that come with a long-term strategy. The Clean Energy Standard Act will keep a spotlight on this important policy tool and bring it one step closer to getting done.

When are we going to be honest about the impact of “clean energy” standards, renewable energy standards, cap and trade, and all the other policies to cut energy use under the guise of helping future generations? These policies are not things we do for our grandchildren; they are things we would do to them. The costs are hugely back loaded onto future generations, while the front-end costs are often fictionalized with unrealistic assumptions about carbon-reduction strategies.

On March 1, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D–NM) proposed a national Clean Energy Standard (CES). Clean Energy Standards are modifications of the Renewable Energy Standards that have been proposed before and have been enacted by several states and regions. The primary modifications allow nuclear power (or some of it) to count as clean energy and give partial credit for other sources such as natural gas. (Since carbon dioxide is odorless, invisible, and non-toxic, it is Orwellian doublethink to label CO2 “dirty.”) The standard mandates minimum percentages of electric power that must be generated from clean energy sources.

One of the little-known facts about cap-and-trade bills is that 85 percent or more of the carbon reductions would come from the electric power industry alone. So, though a CES may cover only the power industry, it can have economic costs that are almost as big as cap and trade.

Last year, Senator Bingaman requested an Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis of several clean energy proposals. As with the low-ball estimates of costs done for the cap-and-trade bills, the analyses of Bingaman’s clean energy standards assume huge increases in new nuclear capacity and commercialization of carbon capture and storage.

These assumptions, however, are wildly unrealistic. Though the technical capacity exists for expanding nuclear capacity over the next two or three decades, the regulatory and waste disposal hurdles that stand in the way of significant capacity expansion are not addressed in the Bingaman bill. Proponents of carbon capture and storage (CCS) can’t point to a single commercial-scale project. Full, wide-scale deployment of CCS—and the possibly more problematic disposal of liquefied CO2—is still a pipe dream.

Different analyses of renewable energy standards (RES) had widely varying estimates of economic impact. An analysis of one bill by the EIA projected electricity price increases of only 3 percent. On the other hand, a Heritage Foundation analysis of a generic RES projected increases of 36 percent or more by 2035.

Last month, a study by Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute looked at the current prices charged for electricity across states. He found that states with renewable standards had residential electricity rates that are already more than 30 percent higher than states without a renewable standard. The impact is clearer when comparing coal-dependent states with a renewable standard to coal-dependent states without a renewable standard. Those with a renewable mandate saw their residential electricity prices rise at double the rate of coal-dependent states without the mandate between 2001 and 2010. A maximum price impact of 3 percent does not seem plausible given these facts.

What today’s clean energy standards have going for them that earlier plans to restrict carbon dioxide did not is the currently low price of natural gas. If—in contrast to our experience over the past several decades—natural gas prices remain low and stable, the big costs of Bingaman’s CES would not fully come into play until after the end of the EIA analysis time period (2035), when the partial clean energy credit for natural gas would not be enough to meet the tighter requirements as the standard ratchets down. What will our children and grandchildren do then? If they are smart, they would consider repealing any energy-killing mandates we dumped on them.

Senator Bingaman is to be commended for several aspects of his proposed clean energy standard (CES) legislation. The inclusion of combined heat and power in the CES is recognition of a technology that has long been overlooked by advocates of renewable energy. The inclusion of efficiency is equally praiseworthy: long recognized as the most cost effective way of improving the environmental performance of an economy, it deserves its place alongside generation sources in the incentive structure. The use of revenue generated for efficiency measures sensibly provides further support for efficiency. The proposition of a price floor for the compliance is also a good idea: by setting a general minimum standard without prescribing the constituency of the energy mix, the CES allows the market to find the most cost-effective means of producing cleaner energy.

However, the bill suffers from fundamental drawbacks: one of its own making, and the other not. The former is that it is not nearly ambitious enough. The bill effectively sets a price on carbon dioxide of $36.58 per metric ton (with a performance threshold of 0.82 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour, and a penalty for non-compliance of $30 per MW/h) for the electricity that is subject to the legislation. However given the minimum annual percentages of clean electricity to be produced, generators of "dirty" energy (i.e. that which does not meet the minimum carbon dioxide intensity targets) will not have to pay even half of that amount for their portfolio-wide generation until 2024. Even at the highest minimum level of 84 percent, which is not required until 2035, the effective portfolio-wide price on carbon is under $31 per ton. According to most estimates, such prices are nowhere near high enough to make carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) – a technology that the International Energy Agency describes in its most recent energy outlook as central to the “cost-effective avoidance of dangerous climate change” – economically feasible. Supporters of the bill will probably claim, with some merit, that you have to start somewhere; the carbon price may be low, but at least it recognizes the external costs of emissions, and surely that must be a good thing.

However, this argument is undermined by the second drawback that the bill faces: it has absolutely no hope of becoming law. This is not a criticism of the bill itself. No matter how reasonable or well-designed such legislation is, there is not the social “pull” necessary for this kind of bill to pass. The non-compliance penalties will no doubt be portrayed as a job-killing energy tax, and damaging to US industrial competitiveness. Despite the spuriousness of such claims, they will resonate with a populace and a Congress that is increasingly skeptical about the merits of climate change (in a recent Pew poll, climate change came 22nd in a list of 22 issues for consideration by Congress and the President), and prone to see environmental legislation as European-inspired government overreach. Against such a backdrop, Senator Bingaman had an opportunity to put forward a bill that showed what an effective CES could do to significantly steer the energy mix toward a more environmentally sustainable destination – and what it would cost. If you are going to dream, dream big: it’s free.

The Clean Energy Standard Act, introduced by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), should re-ignite a much needed Congressional conversation about clean energy production. Working in a bipartisan fashion to move forward with a national energy standard can help advance this country towards a cleaner and more secure energy system if it focuses on jumpstarting new American energy resources that are truly renewable, rather than rewarding energy sources already relying upon.

The United States should not wait any longer to transition to a more sustainable energy economy, and away from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas that we are heavily reliant on. For us, that means focusing policies on needed new renewable energy resources. The proposed standard mimics the familiar renewable electricity standard (RES)—but unlike an RES, it proposes to include fossil energy resources with proven technological and public safety risks such as “clean coal,” nuclear power and natural gas.

Creating energy by burning fossil fuels of any type is anything but clean, or renewable. As we have reported before, natural gas is at best only 50% cleaner burning than coal, and poses a host of problems related to its development and extraction. And committing to “clean coal” relies on unproven technologies that will only capture a portion of the harmful air pollutants unleashed into the atmosphere when coal burns. The sliding-scale approach in the proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES) recognizes that natural gas, for example, should not be in the same category as solar or wind when it comes to defining “clean.”

While natural gas may be cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, the processing, infrastructure and burning of natural gas releases methane, a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The Congressional Research Service has found that methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure are the third largest source of methane – anything but clean. And the impacts from extraction of natural gas on wildlife habitats, water quality and the landscape are well-documented. Any fuel included in a “clean energy standard” should be evaluated on a lifecycle basis that includes the emissions and damage from extraction, drilling and transport in addition to combustion.

The proposed Clean Energy Standard rightly recognizes that biomass involves burning carbon, and calls for a much-needed study. Research shows that, if the source is not true waste, it can exacerbate our carbon emissions problem for decades even if those emissions are eventually absorbed by new tree growth. Biomass should qualify for such a standard only if it is found to reduce, not exacerbate, the threat of climate disruption.

We also need to ask why we should include technologies that not only are not clean, but are also not disadvantaged in the current marketplace. The expanded use of natural gas does not need the artificial boost of a “clean energy standard” designation, and its inclusion could very well defeat the faster utilization of truly clean energy technologies. Tax incentives to the fossil fuel industry in general – $4 billion a year – have lost their usefulness and are now simply wasted. We should seek out opportunities to redirect federal investments into new energy opportunities with greater promise and create new markets for renewable power.

The country needs to transition to renewable energy “done smart.” We know from experience that policies like a national clean energy standard drive production, and will result in necessary investments from private sources. Ensuring, for instance, that a long term siting process is in place for large solar and wind projects on federal lands is also a crucial component to the success of a long-lasting renewable energy sector. Finding places with low environmental and cultural conflicts will only help the industry grow into the primary source of domestic energy that Americans need, for improving health, creating jobs and to move away from our dependence on foreign fuels.

Chairman Bingaman’s much-needed leadership gives us a starting point from which we should ensure we are building towards a better future—one that respects generations of Americans to come. While far from perfect, this piece of legislation is a great beginning to a long overdue conversation about the United States’ energy future.

As Sen. Bingaman prepares to leave the Senate, it is unfortunate that he has succumbed to the illness of those who remain in Washington far too long. Symptoms include detachment from the world around them, belief rhetoric over reality, and wishful thinking. This legislation falls under the last category, and that’s hardly a good foundation for energy policy.

Sen. Bingaman’s dubs his proposal a ‘clean-energy standard’; yet, it’s little more than a veneer for an industrial policy to dictate Americans’ electricity consumption. Consumers—through the market—are delivering a verdict about the future of electric power generation, and it isn’t the “renewables” the good Senator from New Mexico favors. Since he first began promoting this renewable mandate, an abundance of evidence has emerged demonstrating that these policies impose higher costs on consumers and subsidize wind and solar energy developers.

For several years, advocates pointed to Europe as leading the way in deploying solar and wind power. Now most of those nations are giving up on their renewable dream because they can no longer afford to subsidize wasteful efforts that have only made their economic problems worse.

Germany is a prime example. The costs of subsidizing solar have now exceeded €100 billion (over $130 billion) for an industry that generates only 3 percent of the country’s electricity. And there’s no end in sight, according to the Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research. These staggering commitments have resulted in German consumers having the second highest electricity prices in Europe. And to make matters worse, Germany has been importing electricity from France and the Czech Republic because of short days with no or little sun, bad weather, and overcast skies. Not only is the German electricity market on the verge of collapse according to some analysts but energy intensive industries are saying “Der Partei über, ist es Zeit, zu gehen” (“The party’s over, it’s time to go”).

In spite of large federal government subsidies for renewables (primarily wind and solar) here at home, these sources still only represent a small fraction of our produced energy—less than 4 percent. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that government subsidies for all energy totaled $9 billion in 1999. By 2010, they had grown to $37 billion with almost half going to renewables. In addition, the 2009 stimulus bill directed over $20 billion to renewable energy development. And yet, renewables remain non-competitive and will for a long time to come. The biggest mystery is why Sen. Bingaman continues to promote a wasteful and failed approach to energy policy?

Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that wind and solar cannot compete with conventional power generation because of their low power density, the large land mass required for siting, transmission costs, and the need for back-up to compensate for the lack of storage capacity. Technologies to overcome these deficiencies are nowhere in sight.

The EIA’s latest “Energy Outlook” compares the costs of alternative power generation systems. These are shown in the following table, extracted from Table 2 in the section on levelized cost of new generation.

Source

Average Cost per Megawatt Hour

Gas Fired

$65.10 - $88.40

Wind

$96.10 - $243.70

Solar

$211.00 - $312.20

Until these cost differences can be narrowed by advances in new technology, it makes no sense to force utilities to generate some power with renewables. Doing so subsidizes manufacturers, imposes unnecessary costs on consumers and businesses, and slows economic growth.

There is a clear linkage between energy availability and cost and economic growth. Higher costs retard growth; lower costs stimulate it. The structure of our economy and lifestyles has led to an increasing demand for electrical power. The recent boom in natural gas should make it obvious that it not renewables that will be the future of power generation.

A recent series of papers by Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute provide a critical review of the realities confronting wind and solar. Sen. Bingaman and his colleagues would do the public a favor by reading them and then letting reality replace wishful thinking

(These comments were submitted by Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the Center for American Progress.)

In today’s challenging economic times, clean energy continues to be a success story. In 2011, the United States once again led the world in clean energy investments. In 2012, more than 85,000 people work in the wind industry. And the Brookings Institution found that the renewable energy jobs grew at more than 10 percent annually from 2003 to 2010.

While these numbers are notable, they’re nowhere near as impressive as they could be if there were a national policy to create stable demand for wind, solar, and other forms of renewable electricity. Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, S. 2146, would create the policy stability that’s needed to increase investment in this critical industry. A clean energy standard would provide a long-term signal to utilities, project developers, manufacturers, and everyone else in this industry that they should invest in clean energy – which includes not just renewable, but also nuclear, natural gas, and other low-carbon resources.

By increasing investment, this clean energy standard will create jobs. Not only will people go to work in building and operating new electric generation facilities, but the entire supply chain will be strengthened because the market for their goods and services will expand. Without stable demand for their goods, manufacturers are hesitant to locate in the United States. Stable demand, on the other hand, encourages companies to open new factories. After the production tax credit for wind energy was extended for four years, for example, the domestic content of a wind turbine in the United States increased from 25 percent in 2005 to more than 50 percent today.

The environmental benefits of this bill are as important as the economic benefits. While virtually any investment will create some jobs, only investments in low-carbon dioxide pollution energy will help avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. The Energy Information Administration projects that a clean energy standard could/would reduce pollution from the power sector by 40 percent.

Senator Bingaman’s proposal ensures that the benefits of clean energy will be shared by all Americans. His bill allows for a diverse range of no and low-carbon dioxide polluting electricity generation so that each region of the country can use the resources that are most readily available, based on their unique local characteristics. This means that every part of the country will see new jobs and cleaner air.

Dirty energy advocates will say that this proposal will damage the economy by increasing electric rates. This is wrong. There are 29 states with renewable portfolio or electricity standards, and none of them have hurt those states’ economies. The Energy Information Administration projects that a clean energy standard similar to Bingaman’s would have just a .02 percent impact on GDP growth.

There are important details that make Senator Bingaman’s proposal especially attractive. This bill is revenue-neutral for the federal government because any potential income from so-called “alternative compliance payments” is refunded to the states they came from, to be used for energy efficiency programs. This bill includes more utilities than previous proposals. It’s important that as many consumers as possible have access to clean energy.

Every day elected officials talk about the need to create jobs and grow our economy. The best way to do this is to encourage investment in industries of the future, which this bill would do. The Senate should pass this bill quickly, and send this important legislation to the House of Representatives.

While Senator Bingaman’s Clean Energy Standard Act (CESA) is unlikely to gain traction in the current Congress, his introduction of the bill provides an opportunity to restart debate on concrete policy options that can shift the country to clean energy sources that will provide economic opportunities and cut our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. This bill would be a step in the right direction — it would create certainty for clean energy investments, diversify the U.S. power mix, and yield meaningful carbon emissions reductions.

CESA is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. electric power sector by setting a stringent but achievable clean energy supply target. In particular, CESA would require that up to 84% of electricity sold by the nation’s largest electric utilities come from qualifying clean energy sources by 2035. In addition, CESA would be revenue-neutral to the federal budget.

Consistent with prior clean energy standard (CES) bills, electricity generated by all fuel types could be eligible to earn credits under CESA, including electricity from wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and coal that uses carbon capture and storage technology. In the bill, crediting is based on greenhouse gas emissions intensity: zero-carbon generators would receive full credit, while low-carbon generators would receive partial credit based on how carbon-intensive they are compared to today’s most efficient coal-fired power plants.

Several modeling studies have explored how a CES would impact the U.S. electricity mix, greenhouse gas emissions, and consumer electricity rates (for example: here and here). We’ll have to wait a few weeks for the independent Energy Information Administration (EIA) to model CESA specifically. However, detailed EIA analyses of variations on this bill found that a CES policy would create a more diverse, less carbon-intensive U.S. electricity mix.

For example, EIA estimates that a CES would result in a five-fold increase in U.S. wind power production, more than double what would be achieved without this policy in place. In addition, EIA estimates that power sector carbon dioxide emissions in 2035 would be 43% lower than without a CES; that’s a 20% absolute reduction relative to 2008 levels.

Also important is the CESA requirement for a study to quantify upstream “losses of natural gas” and to recommend policies necessary to reduce these losses. This requirement recognizes the importance of reducing upstream emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from throughout U.S. natural gas production and distribution systems. This issue has gained prominence with recent debates around the greenhouse gas implications of developing shale gas resources in the U.S.

To help minimize rate impacts, CESA exempts small utilities (thus exempting many co-ops and municipally-owned utilities). In addition, utilities may comply by paying a fee, known as an alternative compliance payment; this revenue would go directly back to states and consumers through energy efficiency programs. This could complement bipartisan energy efficiency legislation that passed through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, chaired by Senator Bingaman, earlier in this Congress.

The investment potential is vast. For example, the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011 forecasts that with new climate and clean energy policies, of the $9.8 trillion in global investment in new power plants projected between 2011 and 2035, $5.9 trillion will be for hydro and other renewables.

Senator Bingaman’s proposal is the first piece of legislation in this Congress that could help move the country toward cleaner energy— truly unleashing economic opportunities and driving innovation. We recognize that much more is needed to rein in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the U.S. economy. But evidence to date suggests that a strong CES would be a very good start. The introduction of this bill is a positive step in restarting a real conversation about America’s clean energy future.

A national clean energy standard will be a setback for our recovering economy because it will displace traditional energy sources with more costly, undeveloped and inefficient energy sources. Energy use and economic growth go hand in hand. In recent years each 1% increase in GDP in the U.S. has been accompanied by a 0.2% increase in energy use. Higher energy prices tend to slow economic growth and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and other sectors as well.

As policymakers confront the slow U.S. economic recovery and slow job growth, they need to consider the impact of tax, budget and regulatory decisions that promote the use of renewable energy compared to the expansion of conventional fossil fuels or nuclear power electricity generation and for transportation.

Economic analyses show that costs of renewable energy run high than traditional energy sources. Data on electricity prices in states with renewable portfolio standards (RPS) show that they experience higher costs for electricity those without an RPS mandate. In 2011, the 29 states with an RPS mandate faced residential electricity prices that were 27% higher than those without a mandate and industrial electricity prices were 23% higher (see Figure 2 of ACCF testimony). Additionally, a national mandate requiring that electricity retailers supply a specified share of their sales from clean energy sources would have adverse economic impacts. A December 2011 EIA analysis shows that by 2035, the Bingaman CES will raise electricity prices by 20% to 27 % and reduce GDP by $124 billion to $214 billion. Despite the higher levels of federal support and economic costs of supporting renewable energy, the impact on reducing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere will be minimal since the real growth in emissions is coming from developing countries or to make material improvement to the U.S. mortality rate. In addition, as described above, renewable energy is not without its own negative environmental and social impacts. By encouraging the deployment of energy technologies that are more expensive than conventional energy, consumers and industry are forced to spend more on energy and have less for other purchases or for productive investment. As a result, GDP and job growth will be lower than otherwise as resources are diverted from their highest and best use. While the intentions of Senator Bingaman are honorable, a federal clean energy standard will be a lose-lose for the U.S.—environmentally and economically.

To protect our families from dangerous pollution and to reduce the threat of climate change, America needs to expand our clean energy resources. Sustainable energy-things like wind and solar-can generate pollution-free power and make our air safer to breathe.

Senator Bingaman's bill is an important step in the right direction of bringing those benefits to more American communities. By promoting a carbon pollution reduction standard, the bill provides a solid cornerstone for building a cleaner electricity sector-one that encourages innovation and generates jobs.

Standards to promote renewable energy have already proven to be highly effective at the state level. Nearly 30 states require utilities to generate some portion of electricity supply through renewable resources like wind and solar power.

These standards have helped deploy renewable energy across the nation. In the last four years, 35 percent of all new power built in the U.S. has come from wind energy-enough to provide as much power as nine nuclear power plants- and the cost of wind energy has come down between 25 and 40 percent in the last decade. The U.S. solar industry, meanwhile, is ten times the size it was a few years ago. Nearly 90,000 Americans make their living building wind turbines, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more than 100,000 people currently work in the solar industry.

A recent Quarterly Report from the California Public Utility provides a snapshot on the impressive progress made under the state's 33 percent renewable energy standard. More than 830 megawatts of renewable capacity came on line in 2011, and all three of the state's largest utilities are projected to meet the requirement to provide an average of 20 percent renewable power from 2011 to 2013. The cost of renewable power declined significantly over the past two years, with bid prices in response to the 2011 solicitation dropping 30 percent compared to 2009.

A national clean energy standard could expand cost effective, low-carbon energy across the nation, and Senator Bingaman's bill moves us closer toward that goal.

To truly reduce carbon pollution and protect the health of American families and communities, the final legislation should be married to complementary measures that safeguard our air, water, and other natural resources.

For instance, the bill includes natural gas power as an eligible lower-carbon resource. This increases the need to act without further delay to reform natural gas production and distribution practices, which today threaten health, air, water, and community values. The bill should also include a robust energy efficiency standard-the cleanest, fastest, and cheapest way to slash carbon pollution.

Senator Bingaman deserves praise for sparking this conversation and keeping the critical task of modernizing our power sector to protect public health on the national agenda.

Senator Bingaman’s national “clean energy standard” (CES) is a solution in search of a problem—unless you think that state legislators aren’t wise enough to the value of energy mandates or if you think that electricity prices are too low.

Senator Bingaman’s CES would impose a nationwide standard,even though 29 states have already implemented a renewable electricity mandate and an additional 7 states have renewable goals. The point of Senator Bingaman’s legislation is to require more “clean electricity” in states that do not currently have a renewable mandate. Basically, the gentleman from New Mexico wants to force California-style regulations on Wyoming, Mississippi, and Kentucky.

Also, “clean energy” mandates have been demonstrated to lead to higher electricity prices: a recent Energy Information Administration analysis on a similar proposal found that a CES “leads to higher electricity prices in all of the sensitivity cases.” This is because a CES mandates the use of more expensive sources of electricity. Electricity prices have already been “skyrocketing,” and a national CES would only exacerbate the pain. It’s just that simple.

Instead of driving up electricity prices, especially in the low-cost electricity states that do not have a mandate, the federal government should be working to bring down energy costs. Increasing mandates is one of the reasons electricity prices are on the rise, and EPA’s overregulation in the form of the Mercury Air Toxics Rule and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to name two, will only lead to higher electricity prices in the future even without a CES. A CES will only result in even higher electricity prices.

Lastly, President Obama keeps talking about supporting an all-of-the-above energy policy, as mentioned in his recent State of the Union address. But by supporting a clean energy mandate, which punishes coal and natural gas, he demonstrates that he isn’t serious about the “all” in “all-of-the-above.”

While I respect the Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, I have to state from a public policy standpoint that this proposed CES bill has no value. While natural gas, pre-fracking, may be the cleanest fossil choice, the point of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or clean energy standard (CES) should be to drive the cleanest newcomers into the marketplace. Natural gas is one of the older energy options and one of the lowest costs. The market is poised to uptake natural gas as the prime source for electric generation now. So all this inclusion in a CES does is to insure there will be few renewable energy options. The CES also fails to set some proportion for high-value energy efficiency which is another critical policy lapse. And while combined-heat and power is included, other high-value options like geoexchange, solar thermal and daylighting, among others (including net-zero energy buildings and infrastructure) should also be steadfastly encouraged. While the generation of nuclear power does have a lower carbon threshold, the mining of uranium does not. The uranium mining and the waste storage have an ongoing poor environmental record. Uranium importation and security issues also dog this industry. And none of these attributes neither make it clean nor is this a 'newcomer' technology by any means. The bill, as proposed, is just a hodgepodge of everything which lacks focus and lacks purpose, and I suggest would not only NOT yield a kilowatt of renewable electricity. The marketplace would not change one iota from how it now acts if this bill were passed.