The bill which received Royal Assent on June 22nd, is nearing the end of the public consultation phase. There has so far been very little input, and without adequate input from the public, which becomes legally admissible to the process, the Government will be able to fulfill this self-fulfilling prophecy they have set us on.
I plan on writing a letter to Mr. Baird before Sept. 20, sending it off tonight actually. It will include some of what I believe are the best options moving forward as already demonstrated by other jurisdictions around the world.
The problem I have is the lack of attention to other regions. There are many states for example which have implemented renewable electricity standards (RES). These basically state that new generating capacity must include a rising percentage of renewables. There are 25 RES states, as well as Washington DC . A recent report by US PIRG found that in 2006, RES states accounted for approximately 2/3 of the total US new renewable electricity generation, and this year it is up to 70%. Texas is the standout, with 2000 MW of new renewable capacity. In RES states, renewable is approximately 38% of the total generating capacity, while in non-RES states, it is about 12%.
How does this affect emissions? In the RES states, the implementation of this program has reduced emissions by the equivalent of 1.5 million cars, or 8.4 million metric tonnes of GHG. This also has implications for clean air, as it has seen emissions of nitrogen oxide drop by 2100 metric tonnes, sulphur dioxide down by 44 tonnes, and non-methane hydrocarbons down by 220 tonnes. Additionally, the switch to renewables sees 1.2 Billion gallons of water conserved.
Another benefit to the consumer, is that reduced demand on natural gas in the RES states will reduce bills for natural gas by $10 Billion, according to a study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 2005. The US senate is proposing a similar bill which would see all generating capacity by companies at 15% renewable, which would save consumers $100 Billion on electric bills by 2026, according to a study by Wood MacKenzie.
Renewable energy costs have nowhere to go but down, while fossil fuel powered generation has nowhere to go but up. I think our primary focus ought to be on phasing out the dirty coal plants, especially the rules which allow for a perverse form of grandfathering, where essentially new generating plants are built on existing sites, and due to the wonky nature of our regulatory framework, do not have to meet tougher emission standards. If subsidies and tax frameworks give equal footing to renewables, then there is no comparison to fossil fuels.
New coal strategies involve geosequestration and coal to liquid technology, which will be much more expensive than renewables. Why bother committing to a plant with 50 years of life when the cost per megawatt will certainly be more expensive over the long haul?
The jobs lost from conventional generation, as dictated by the Kyoto Implementation Bill, can be transfered to a new manufacturing industry. Jobs are already on the ups in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Texas, and Massachusetts, all of whom are RES states.
This is but a taste of the letter. There is no reason for our government to be so pessimistic about the future. I would blame much of that pessimism on the dirty generating companies, who wish to remain using more expensive energy, requiring more subsidies and placing pressure on political friends. Routinely, market estimates for things even like cap and trade fall short. Economists count, they don't know the value. They also have historically over-estimated the costs of regulations to industry, as there is no way to know how the market will adapt to new conditions. Initial hiccups maybe, but over the long haul, I find it hard to believe any capitalist would have little faith in the market to adapt and implement ingenious solutions.
I plan on writing a letter to Mr. Baird before Sept. 20, sending it off tonight actually. It will include some of what I believe are the best options moving forward as already demonstrated by other jurisdictions around the world.
The problem I have is the lack of attention to other regions. There are many states for example which have implemented renewable electricity standards (RES). These basically state that new generating capacity must include a rising percentage of renewables. There are 25 RES states, as well as Washington DC . A recent report by US PIRG found that in 2006, RES states accounted for approximately 2/3 of the total US new renewable electricity generation, and this year it is up to 70%. Texas is the standout, with 2000 MW of new renewable capacity. In RES states, renewable is approximately 38% of the total generating capacity, while in non-RES states, it is about 12%.
How does this affect emissions? In the RES states, the implementation of this program has reduced emissions by the equivalent of 1.5 million cars, or 8.4 million metric tonnes of GHG. This also has implications for clean air, as it has seen emissions of nitrogen oxide drop by 2100 metric tonnes, sulphur dioxide down by 44 tonnes, and non-methane hydrocarbons down by 220 tonnes. Additionally, the switch to renewables sees 1.2 Billion gallons of water conserved.
Another benefit to the consumer, is that reduced demand on natural gas in the RES states will reduce bills for natural gas by $10 Billion, according to a study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 2005. The US senate is proposing a similar bill which would see all generating capacity by companies at 15% renewable, which would save consumers $100 Billion on electric bills by 2026, according to a study by Wood MacKenzie.
Renewable energy costs have nowhere to go but down, while fossil fuel powered generation has nowhere to go but up. I think our primary focus ought to be on phasing out the dirty coal plants, especially the rules which allow for a perverse form of grandfathering, where essentially new generating plants are built on existing sites, and due to the wonky nature of our regulatory framework, do not have to meet tougher emission standards. If subsidies and tax frameworks give equal footing to renewables, then there is no comparison to fossil fuels.
New coal strategies involve geosequestration and coal to liquid technology, which will be much more expensive than renewables. Why bother committing to a plant with 50 years of life when the cost per megawatt will certainly be more expensive over the long haul?
The jobs lost from conventional generation, as dictated by the Kyoto Implementation Bill, can be transfered to a new manufacturing industry. Jobs are already on the ups in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Texas, and Massachusetts, all of whom are RES states.
This is but a taste of the letter. There is no reason for our government to be so pessimistic about the future. I would blame much of that pessimism on the dirty generating companies, who wish to remain using more expensive energy, requiring more subsidies and placing pressure on political friends. Routinely, market estimates for things even like cap and trade fall short. Economists count, they don't know the value. They also have historically over-estimated the costs of regulations to industry, as there is no way to know how the market will adapt to new conditions. Initial hiccups maybe, but over the long haul, I find it hard to believe any capitalist would have little faith in the market to adapt and implement ingenious solutions.