Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS): Background and Debate Over a National Requirement

Congressional research reportDec 5, 2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼǱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ

ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ

ȱśǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

řŚŗŗŜȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

¢ȱ

Under a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), retail electricity suppliers (electric utilities)

must provide a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy resources or purchase

tradable credits that represent an equivalent amount of renewable energy production. The

minimum requirement is often set as a percentage share of retail electricity sales. More than 20

states have established an RPS, with most targets ranging from 10% to 20% and most target

deadlines ranging from 2010 to 2025. Most states have established tradable credits as a way to

lower costs and facilitate compliance. State RPS action has provided an experience base for the

design of a possible national requirement.

RPS proponents contend that a national system of tradable credits would enable retail suppliers in

states with fewer resources to comply at the least cost by purchasing credits from organizations in

states with a surplus of low-cost production. Opponents counter that regional differences in

availability, amount, and types of renewable energy resources would make a federal RPS unfair

and costly.

In Senate floor action on H.R. 6 in the 110th Congress, S.Amdt. 1537 proposed a 15% RPS target.

The proposal triggered a lively debate, but was ultimately ruled non-germane. In that debate,

opponents argued that a national RPS would disadvantage certain regions of the country,

particularly the Southeastern states. They contended that the South lacks a sufficient amount of

renewable energy resources to meet a 15% renewables requirement. They further concluded that

an RPS would cause retail electricity prices to rise for many consumers.

RPS proponents countered by citing a study by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The report examined the potential impacts of the 15% RPS proposed in S.Amdt. 1537. It

indicated that the South has sufficient biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants

and existing coal plants co-firing with biomass fuel, to meet a 15% RPS. EIA noted further that

the estimated net RPS requirement for the South would not make it “unusually dependent” on

other regions and was in fact “below the national average requirement....” Regarding electricity

prices, EIA estimated that the 15% RPS would likely raise retail prices by slightly less than 1%

over the 2005 to 2030 period. Further, the RPS would likely cause retail natural gas prices to fall

slightly over that period.

In House floor action on an RPS amendment (H.Amdt. 748) to H.R. 3221, key points and

counterpoints of the Senate RPS debate were repeated. The RPS was added (220 to 190), and the

bill passed the House (241 to 172). The RPS amendment would set a 15% target for 2020, and

would allow up to 4 percentage points of the requirement to be met with energy efficiency

measures. After House action, informal bipartisan House-Senate negotiations began. The House

RPS provision (§9006) continues to be key issue. On December 1, 2007, the Ranking Member of

the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee stated that the House Leadership’s intent to

include an RPS led him to cease negotiations. Further, the White House has reportedly announced

that it would veto the bill if it includes an RPS.

ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The RPS Mechanism................................................................................................................. 1

State RPS Action ....................................................................................................................... 1

Electricity Production Targets............................................................................................. 2

Tradable Credits.................................................................................................................. 2

Credit Flexibility Mechanisms............................................................................................ 3

Federal RPS Action and Debate ...................................................................................................... 3

Federal RPS Legislation............................................................................................................ 3

Renewable Portfolio Standard (S.Amdt. 1537 to H.R. 6)................................................... 3

Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (H.Amdt. 748 to H.R. 3221) ................................. 4

Comparing H.Amdt. 748 with S.Amdt. 1537 ..................................................................... 5

Senate RPS Debate (S.Amdt. 1537 to H.R. 6) .......................................................................... 6

Resource Availability and Electricity Price Impacts........................................................... 6

Transmission Constraints.................................................................................................... 8

An Alternative Proposal: The “Clean Energy” Portfolio Standard ..................................... 9

House RPS Debate (H.Amdt. 748 to H.R. 3221)...................................................................... 9

EIA Report on RPS Provision in H.R. 3221.................................................................................. 10

Informal House-Senate Negotiations .............................................................................................11

Table 1. H.Amdt. 748 Compared with S.Amdt. 1537 ..................................................................... 5

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 12

ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

ȱȱȱ

Under a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), retail electricity suppliers (electric utilities)

must either provide a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy resources or

purchase tradable credits that represent an equivalent amount of renewable energy production.

The minimum requirement is often set as a percentage share of retail electricity sales, which is

usually expressed in terms of kilowatt-hours (kwh).1 Many RPS programs use tradable credits,

sometimes referred to as renewable energy certificates, to increase flexibility and reduce the cost

of compliance with the purchase mandate, and to facilitate compliance tracking.2

ȱȱȱ

In the late 1990s, many states began to restructure their electric utility industries to allow for

increased competition. Some of the states with this newly “restructured” system established an

RPS as a way to create a continuing role for renewable energy in power production.3 Some states

without a restructured industry also began to adopt an RPS. The total number of states with an

RPS has grown steadily. In June 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

reported that 23 states and the District of Columbia had an RPS in place,4 collectively covering

about 40% of the national electric load.5 Mandatory state RPS targets range from a low of 2% to a

high of 25%. However, most targets range from 10% to 20% and are scheduled to be reached

between 2010 and 2025. Although this emerging “tapestry of state programs” continues to spread

to more states, the majority of recent actions have been to increase and accelerate previously

established standards.6 Most states have a similar definition of eligible renewable resources that

covers wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and several forms of water-based power, including

hydropower, current, wave, tidal, and ocean power.7 At least 19 of the 23 states allow some form

Most states use the percentage requirement. The only exceptions are Texas and Iowa, which have chosen to specify

the minimum requirement in terms of installed capacity, measured in terms of millions of watts (megawatts).

Department of Energy (DOE). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Renewables Portfolio

Standards: A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States. (LBNL-62569) April 2007. p. 3.

DOE. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Weighing the Costs and Benefits of State Renewables

Portfolio Standards: A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Policy Impact Projections, March 2007. p. 1.

Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 had guaranteed a market for the purchase

of electric power produced from small renewable energy facilities. PURPA let states determine the avoided cost pricing

of the electricity production from renewable energy facilities. The effectiveness of this mechanism lessened with the

advent of electric industry restructuring. Provided that certain conditions are met in any given state, Section 1253 of the

Energy Policy Act of 2005 terminates the PURPA requirements.

DOE. FERC. Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS). This is a map showing the status of state action on RPS.

Updated June 7, 2007. http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview/2007/elec-ovr-rps.pdf. Also,

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has posted a map showing the status of state RPS

action. EERE notes that four additional states (Illinois, Missouri, Vermont, and Virginia) have enacted non-binding

“goals” for renewable electricity production. http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm.

Berkeley Lab, Renewable Portfolio Standards.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change reviewed the status of state RPS policies in 2006. See Race to the Top:

The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards. 2006. 36 p. http://www.pewclimate.org/globalwarming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top/index.cfm.

Details about eligible resources and other provisions of state RPS programs are available from the online Database of

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

of credit trading. Non-compliance penalties range from about one cent per kwh to 5.5 cents per

kwh. There are significant regional differences in resource availability. As shown in the

previously cited FERC map, most states in the Southeast and Midwest regions do not have an

RPS requirement. Several states have broadened their RPS provisions to allow certain energy

efficiency measures and technologies to help satisfy the requirement.8

¢ȱȱȱ

Most state RPS programs employ an annual renewable energy target that is set as a percentage of

total projected electricity production.9 With a percentage requirement, the amount of mandated

renewable energy will increase or decrease in proportion to changes in end-use electricity sales.

In general, the targets increase gradually, in a step-wise fashion, over a period of several years.

The scheduled rise of the annual target, and its peak value, are intended to create predictable

long-term purchase obligations that drive new development and economies of scale. The

graduated schedule is intended to allow time for competition to emerge among eligible resources.

Also, to create stability that allows for long-term contracts and financing that can help keep

renewable energy costs down, the peak target often is designed to remain in place for several

years after it is reached. Most state targets include only generation from new renewable energy

facilities, placed in service after the RPS standard is enacted.10

ȱȱ

Many states have created tradable credits as a way to lower costs and facilitate compliance.

Typically, the owner of a qualified renewable energy facility receives one credit for each kilowatthour of electricity produced. The credits are treated as a product separate from generated power.

Credits are a purely financial product that represents the attributes of electricity generated from

renewable energy sources. The owner may bundle the credits for sale with its electrical energy.

Alternatively, the owner may sell the credits and power separately. The power would be sold in

the electricity market, and the credits would be sold in a secondary credit trading market.11

Each year, RPS requires all retail suppliers to show that they have acquired a number of credits

equivalent to the percentage target for the previous year. The retail suppliers have options for

meeting this requirement. Suppliers can choose to build a renewable energy facility, purchase

renewable power bundled with credits, or buy credits separately through the trading market. They

are also free to choose the types of renewable energy to acquire, the price paid, and the contract

terms offered. Further, they can choose whether to enter into long-term credit and/or renewable

power purchase contracts or to purchase these commodities on the spot market. If a supplier

cannot obtain sufficient credits through these means, it can achieve “alternative compliance” by

purchasing additional credits from the state regulatory agency. For a supplier that otherwise fails

(...continued)

State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. http://www.dsireusa.org/.

The most frequently occurring energy efficiency measures are fuel cells and combined heat and power equipment.

Some states use a variation of this target. For example, Texas uses a capacity development target converted annually

into a percentage energy target.

Many states exclude existing hydropower and certain other renewables. Several states place them in a separate “tier.”

Evolution Markets. An Overview of the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Markets. January 30, 2006. p. 4.

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

to meet the credit target, most states require that it purchase additional credits at a higher penalty

price.

ȱ¡¢ȱȱ

Spreading credit requirements over a longer time period can make a credit trading market more

flexible. Many credit trading systems provide a “true-up” (reconciliation) period after the RPS

compliance year. During this period, retailers that are short on their obligation can buy additional

credits and those with excess credits can sell them.12 “Credit banking” can reduce retailer risk and

promote economies of scale by allowing credits to be carried forward to one or more future years.

“Deficit banking” allows a retailer to defer making up a credit shortage to a future year.13

ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱ

Legislative proposals to establish a federal RPS date back to the 105th Congress. During the 107th,

108th, and 109th Congresses, the Senate passed an RPS, but it did not survive conference

committee action. Several bills introduced in the 110th Congress would create an RPS.14 In Senate

floor action on H.R. 6, S.Amdt. 1537 proposed a 15% RPS. The proposal triggered a lively

debate, but was ultimately ruled non-germane. In House action during the 110th Congress, H.R.

969 was introduced with a proposal for a 20% RPS target. The House Leadership indicates that

H.R. 969 may be offered as a floor amendment to H.R. 3221, the House energy independence

legislation.15

ȱȱȱǻǯǯȱŗśřŝȱȱ ǯǯȱŜǼȱ

During Senate floor debate on H.R. 6, S.Amdt. 1537 proposed to add an RPS title to the bill.16

The proposal would have modified Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978

to establish an RPS for retail electric utilities that would be administered by the Department of

Reconciliation often employs a three-month period.

Most states limit the “banking” period, to ensure compliance is not unduly deferred and to prevent credit hoarding

from causing artificial shortages.

These bills include H.R. 969, H.R. 1133, H.R. 1945, H.R. 1590, H.R. 2950, and S. 309, S. 1554, S. 1567, and S.

1602. Descriptions of the RPS provisions in these bills are provided in CRS Report RL33831, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy Legislation in the 110th Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

During the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s markup of draft energy independence legislation, a proposed

amendment would have added H.R. 969 to the legislation, but it was later withdrawn. On July 31, 2007, the

EnergyWashington.com online newsletter reported in RPS Debate Is A Go in the House that the Speaker of the House

was supporting the effort for an RPS floor amendment that would be based on H.R. 969. http://energywashington.com/

blog/index.php.

A summary of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 6 and the House energy independence legislation are presented in

CRS Report RL33831, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 110th Congress, by (name redacted),

(name redacted), and (name redacted).

In Senate floor action on its proposed substitute (S.Amdt. 1502) to H.R. 6, S.Amdt. 1537 to the substitute was

introduced, which proposed adding an RPS. S.Amdt. 1537 had not been considered when a successful cloture motion

(65-27) on the substitute took place. S.Amdt. 1537 was subsequently ruled non-germane.

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

Energy (DOE). For each retail supplier that sells more than four billion kwh per year,17 the RPS

would set a minimum electricity production requirement from renewable resources.

The standard would start at 3.75% in 2010, rising to 7.5% in 2013, 11.25% in 2017, and then

reaching a peak of 15% in 2020. Resources eligible to meet the RPS would include wind, solar,

geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including current, wave, tidal, and ocean thermal), and

incremental hydropower. Existing generation from hydroelectric and municipal solid waste

facilities would not be eligible to meet the percentage standard, but could be excluded from the

sales base used to calculate the RPS.

To supplement direct generation, retail suppliers would be allowed to purchase power from other

organizations, purchase tradable credits from suppliers with a surplus, and purchase credits from

the government at an inflation-adjusted rate that would currently stand at 1.9 cents/kwh credit.

Power generated on Native American lands would receive a double credit, and onsite distributed

generation capacity smaller than one megawatt (mw) used to offset the requirement would receive

a triple credit. An excess of tradable credits could be carried forward (banked) for up to two

additional years into the future. A credit deficit would lead to a penalty that would be set as the

greater of 2.0 cents/kwh or 200% of the average market value of the credits. A credit cost cap

(adjusted for inflation) would be set at 2.0 cents/kwh.

States would be allowed to have stronger RPS requirements. Funds gathered from alternative

compliance and penalty payments would be used for state grants to support renewable energy

production, particularly in states that have a low current capacity for renewable energy

production.

ȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǯǯȱŝŚŞȱȱ ǯǯȱřŘŘŗǼȱ

During the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s markup of draft energy independence

legislation, a proposed amendment would have added H.Amdt. 748 to the legislation, but it was

later withdrawn. Similar to S.Amdt. 1537, H.Amdt. 748 would modify Title VI of the Public

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish an RPS for retail electric utilities that would

be administered by DOE. For each retail supplier that sells more than one billion kwh per year,18

the RPS would set a minimum electricity production requirement from renewable resources.19

The standard would start at 2.75% in 2010 and then rise annually until reaching a peak of 15% in

2020. Electricity savings from energy efficiency measures would be allowed to compose a

maximum of 25% of the standard in any given year, rising to a peak of 4% of the 15% total in

2020.

Renewable energy resources eligible to meet the RPS would include wind, solar, geothermal,

biomass, landfill gas, ocean, tidal, and incremental hydropower. Existing generation from

hydroelectric facilities would not be eligible to meet the percentage standard, but could be

excluded from the sales base used to calculate the RPS.

This minimum production threshold was designed to exempt most non-profit utilities, such as rural electric

cooperatives and municipal utilities.

However, the amendment specifically exempts all retail suppliers in Hawaii.

As with S.Amdt. 1537, this minimum production threshold, although substantially lower, was designed to exempt

most non-profit utilities, such as rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities.

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

To supplement direct generation, retail suppliers would be allowed to purchase power from other

organizations, purchase tradable credits from suppliers with a surplus, and purchase credits from

the government at an initial rate of 1.9 cents/kwh credit that would be inflation-adjusted. Power

generated on Native American lands would receive a double credit, and onsite generation used to

offset the requirement would receive a triple credit. An excess of tradable credits could be carried

forward (banked) for up to four years, and a deficit of credits could be “borrowed” from

anticipated generation up to three years into the future. A credit deficit would lead to a penalty

that would be set as the lesser of 4.5 cents/kwh or 300% of the average market value of the

credits. A credit cost cap (adjusted for inflation) would be set as the lesser of 3.0 cents/kwh or

200% of the average market value of the credits.

The governor of a state may petition DOE to allow up to 25% of a retail supplier’s requirement to

be met by submitting federal energy efficiency credits associated with eligible (“qualifying”)

electricity savings. Eligible electricity savings from end-use energy efficiency actions would

include customer facility savings, reductions in distribution system losses, output from new

combined heat and power systems, and recycled energy savings obtained from commercial and

industrial systems. In each case, the electricity savings would have to meet the measurement and

verification requirements that would be set out in DOE regulations.

States would be allowed to have stronger RPS requirements. DOE would be required to engage

the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the RPS program.

ȱ ǯǯȱŝŚŞȱ ȱǯǯȱŗśřŝȱ

As Table 1 shows, S.Amdt. 1537 and H.Amdt. 748 have some similarities but differ in several

important aspects. The two proposals have nearly identical conditions for overall target

percentage, eligible resources, base amount, multiple credits, and state policy coordination.

However, the proposals have notable differences in the exemption criterion, inclusion of 4%

energy efficiency in target percentage, sunset date, tradable credit cost cap, and flexibility

mechanisms. H.Amdt. 748 includes a program evaluation provision and S.Amdt. 1537 did not.

Both proposals have a state grant provision. The grant provision in S.Amdt. 1537 had an

additional focus on states with a low renewable energy resource capacity. The grant provision in

H.Amdt. 748 allows funding to be used for grants, production incentives, and other stateapproved mechanisms for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Table 1. H.Amdt. 748 Compared with S.Amdt. 1537

Policy Design Element

Electric Utility/Retail Supplier

Energy Target

- Initial Date

- Initial Value

- Peak Start Date

- Peak Value

- Sunset Date

Eligible Resources

(includes new facilities and

incremental production from preexisting facilities)

H.Amdt. 748

S.Amdt. 1537

1 billion kwh (1 million mwh) or more; all

suppliers in Hawaii excluded

4 billion kwh (4 million mwh) or more

2010

2.75%

2020

15%

2039

solar, wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal,

biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydro

2010

3.75%

2020

15%

2030

solar, wind, ocean (current, wave,

tidal, and thermal), biomass,

geothermal, landfill gas, incremental

hydro

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

Policy Design Element

Base Amount

Tradable Credits:

- Native American Land

- On-Site Offset

- Cost Cap/Alternative

Compliance

- Flexibility

++carry forward

++borrow from future

Coordination with State Policies

NAS Program Evaluation

Non-Compliance Penalty

H.Amdt. 748

S.Amdt. 1537

Excludes pre-existing hydropower and

MSW-generated power

- double credit

- triple credit

lesser of 3 cents/kwh or 200% of AMV

- double credit

- triple credit (less than 1 mw)

- 2 cents/kwh

- 3 years

- 2 years

- 3 years

- none specified

states can have higher standards

yes, within 8 years

none specified

the lesser of

the greater of

4.5 cents/kwh

2.0 cents/kwh

(inflation adjusted)

or 300% AMV

or 200% AMV

Use of funds from Alternative

grants to states for renewable energy

state grants for renewable energy

Compliance and Penalties

production, low income energy

production; priority for states with

assistance, and weatherization services;

low renewable energy capacity

in each state, at least 75% must go to

grants and production incentives for

renewables and efficiency

Note on acronyms: The term kwh stands for kilowatt-hours; mwh stands for megawatt-hours; MSW stands

for municipal solid waste; and AMV stands for average market value.

ȱȱȱǻǯǯȱŗśřŝȱȱ ǯǯȱŜǼȱ

The following discussion describes some key aspects of the Senate floor debate over S.Amdt.

1537 to H.R. 6, which proposed a 15% national RPS requirement.

ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ

In the Senate RPS debate, opponents argued that regional differences in availability, amount, and

types of renewable energy resources could make a federal RPS unfair. To support this point, a

letter was introduced from the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners that

stated:

The reality is that not all States are fortunate enough to have abundant traditional renewable

energy resources, such as wind, or have them located close enough to the load to render them

cost-effective. This is especially true in the Southeast and large parts of the Midwest.... Our

retail electricity customers will end up paying higher electricity prices, with nothing to show

for it.20

Further, a fact sheet prepared by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) elaborated on the point about

the potential impact on electricity prices:

Congressional Record. Vol. 153, June 13, 2007. p. S7687.

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

A federal RPS requirement could cost electricity consumers billions of dollars in higher

electricity prices, but with no guarantee that additional renewable generation will actually be

developed. Because many retail electric suppliers will not be able to meet an RPS

requirement through their own generation, they will be required to purchase higher cost

renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits. Thus a

nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in

states with little or no renewable resources to the federal government or states where

renewables happen to be more abundant.21

Proponents counterargued that a national system of tradable credits would enable retail suppliers

in states with less abundant resources to comply at the least cost by purchasing credits from

organizations in states with a surplus of low-cost production. Also, supporters pointed out that

S.Amdt. 1537 provided that funds collected from payments for alternative compliance and

penalties would be used to provide grants:

... to states in regions which have a disproportionately small share of economically

sustainable renewable energy generation capacity....22

The proponents also noted that in addition to many environmental and public interest groups, the

RPS proposal was supported by some electric and natural gas utility companies as well as several

corporations, including BP America and General Electric.23

Perhaps most importantly, RPS proponents countered by citing a study prepared by the

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The report examined the

potential impacts of the 15% RPS proposed in S.Amdt. 1537.24 Regarding resource availability,

the report found that:

Biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants and existing coal plants co-firing

with biomass fuel, grows the most by 2030, more than tripling from 102 billion kilowatthours (kwh) in the reference case to 318 billion kwh with the RPS policy.25

In a follow-up fact sheet to that study, EIA noted that “the South has significant biomass

potential.”26 Compared with other regions of the country, EIA found that the South would not be

“unusually reliant on purchases of allowances from other regions or the federal allowance

window....”27 Further, EIA found that the net requirement for the core region of the South defined

EEI. EEI Raises Concerns About a Mandatory Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. June 12, 2007.

http://www.eei.org/newsroom/energy_news/rps.htm See Fact Sheet entitled: Protect Electricity Consumers and

Existing State Renewable Power Programs: Congress Should Oppose a Mandatory Federal Renewable Portfolio

Standard. 3 p. http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/electricity_policy/state_and_local_policies/rps.pdf.

Congressional Record. Vol. 153, June 13, 2007. p. S7657.

The list of supporters is available on the Web at http://energy.senate.gov/public/

index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=235300&Month=5&Year=2007&Party=0.

DOE. EIA. Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard. June 2007. 24 p.

EIA, Impacts of a 15% RPS, p. 7.

EIA. Supplemental Results to “Impacts of a 15-percent Renewable Portfolio Standard.” Provided to Senator

Bingaman, July 26, 2007. 17 p. Also, a map of biomass resource potential prepared by DOE’s National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) is available on the Web at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/biomass.jpg.

EIA defined “the South” broadly to include four regions of the National American Electric Reliability Corporation

(NERC). They are: Southern Electric Reliability Corporation (SERC), Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

(FRCC), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). A map of the NERC

regions is available at http://www.nerc.com/regional/.

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

by the Southern Electric Reliability Corporation (SERC)—after subtracting exemptions for small

retailers and adjusting the baseline generation for pre-existing hydropower and municipal solid

waste facilities—was “below the national average requirement across all regions.”28

Regarding electricity prices, RPS proponents also cited findings from the EIA study. EIA

estimated that, relative to its base case projections for retail electricity prices, the 15% RPS would

likely raise retail prices by slightly less than 1% over the 2005 to 2030 period. Further, the report

estimated that relative to its base case projections for retail natural gas prices, the RPS would

likely cause retail natural gas prices to fall slightly over the 2005 to 2030 period.29

EIA qualified the report’s findings on potential electricity price impacts. It noted that projected

impacts of an RPS on expenditures for electricity and natural gas in end-use sectors are sensitive

to assumptions about the projected baseline generation fuel mix in its reference case. A higher

share of natural gas in the generation mix would allow an RPS to displace proportionally more

natural gas. Thus, to the extent that natural gas contributes a larger share of the future generation

mix, the 15% RPS would have more economically favorable impacts. To the extent that natural

gas contributes a smaller share, the opposite effect would be more likely.30

ȱȱ

Opponents also contended that the proposed 15% RPS could impose indirect costs for

transmission. EEI stressed that costly new high-voltage transmission lines would be needed,

especially for wind turbines, which are often located far from population centers.31 EEI further

notes that delays are likely and transmission infrastructure issues have posed significant

challenges to the growth of renewable generation.32 Some analysts have suggested that even if

plans and financing were in place now to develop the national transmission capacity needed to

meet a 15% (or higher) RPS, the construction could not take place quickly enough to meet the

2020 target date.33

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has acknowledged the transmission issue,

pointing to ongoing efforts to address it.34 For example, the Texas RPS is driving a boom in wind

development. To address transmission constraints there, the state recently established

“competitive renewable energy zones,” and directed the Electric Reliability Council of Texas

(ERCOT) to develop transmission plans for up to 25,000 megawatts of new wind capacity.35

As shown by the NERC map cited in the previous footnote, the SERC region includes the states of Mississippi,

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and parts of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas,

Louisiana, and Virginia.

EIA, Impacts of a 15% RPS, p. iv and v.

EIA, Impacts of a 15% RPS, p. v.

EEI, Protect Electricity Consumers, p. 3.

For more on this issue, see CRS Report RL33875, Electric Transmission: Approaches for Energizing a Sagging

Industry, by (name redacted). Also see Tripp, Jennifer

Transmission

Access and Delivering the Wind Power. Presentation

developed for R. W. Beck, Inc. (Available from CRS. Not available on the Web.)

AWEA reports both regulatory and legislative efforts underway to address the transmission issue.

http://www.awea.org/policy/regulatory_policy/transmission.html.

AWEA. Windletter. July 2007. p. 7. http://www.awea.org/windletter/073107_AWEA_WL.pdf.

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

RPS proponents note that transmission may be much less of an issue for biomass power

development in the South. For co-firing in existing coal plants, new biomass generation may not

require any new transmission infrastructure. Even for new biomass plants, transmission needs

may involve shorter distances, smaller volumes, and lower costs than that which may be required

for more remote wind farm locations in the Midwest regions.

ȱȱǱȱȱȃȱ¢Ȅȱȱȱ

Opponents of RPS brought an alternative measure to the Senate floor that they argued would

address their concerns about resource hardship, transmission needs, and electricity price

increases. That measure, S.Amdt. 1538, proposed expanding the RPS concept to include energy

efficiency measures and other energy production facilities.36 The “Clean Portfolio Standard,” or

CPS, would have started the requirement at 5% in 2010 and increased to 20% by 2020. Eligible

resources would have been expanded beyond renewables to include energy efficiency, fuel cells,

new nuclear power plants, and new coal power plants that include carbon dioxide capture and

storage equipment.

RPS proponents argued against the CPS proposal. They asserted that the main purpose of the RPS

was to stimulate the market development of new pre-commercial and near-commercial renewable

energy equipment. The CPS, they said, would not require any real change in the energy mix, and

would mainly add an incentive to expand the use of conventional nuclear energy and fossil energy

with carbon capture. In conclusion, RPS proponents contended that the CPS proposal would

eliminate any real requirement to produce additional power from renewables.37 S.Amdt. 1538 was

tabled by a vote of 56 to 39.38

ȱȱȱǻ ǯǯȱŝŚŞȱȱ ǯǯȱřŘŘŗǼȱ

In House floor action on H.R. 3221, an RPS amendment (H.Amdt. 748) was added by a vote of

220 to 190. The bill subsequently passed the House by a vote of 241 to 172. The RPS amendment

would set a 15% target for 2020, and would allow up to 4 percentage points of the requirement to

be met with energy efficiency measures. The issues in debate, and the constellation of proponents

and opponents, were similar to the elements of the preceding Senate floor debate over S.Amdt.

1537.

The arguments in opposition to H.Amdt. 748 echoed those raised in the Senate RPS floor debate.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

expressed their opposition to RPS.39 Both NAM and EEI stated that the RPS could create

hardship for states and regions with low amounts of renewable resources, impose burdens for

electricity transmission and reliability, and raise electricity prices for consumers. Both also stated

support for a long-term extension of federal tax credits for renewables, which they contended

would be the most effective form of support. On the House floor, RPS opponents decried the

Congressional Record. Vol. 153, June 13, 2007. p. S7658-S7659.

Congressional Record. Vol. 153, June 14, 2007. p. S7690.

Congressional Record. Vol. 153, June 14, 2007. p. S7691.

The NAM letter of opposition is available at http://www.energywashington.com/secure/data_extra/dir_07/

ew2007_2360.pdf. Also, EEI’s opposition is noted at http://www.energywashington.com/secure/

energy_docnum.asp?f=ew_2002.ask&docnum=ew2007_2330.

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

absence of support for nuclear power facilities and said the RPS proposals would undermine coal

facilities. They contended that it was unfair to exempt electric cooperatives, municipal utilities,

and the state of Hawaii. Opponents to RPS argued further that some states with fewer resources

would be burdened with additional electricity costs. Opponents also contended that biomass

power technologies were not yet ready for commercial use and that certain usable forms of

biomass had been left out of the definition of eligible biomass resources.

The American Wind Energy Association stated that a national RPS is needed “to fully reap the

benefits of renewable energy,” and cited broad support for RPS.40 Also, the Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS) said it used EIA’s computer model to examine the potential effects of an RPS

and found somewhat larger savings for cumulative electricity and natural gas bills than EIA’s

study.41 An EIA report observed that in the early years after its creation in 1992, the federal

renewable energy electricity production tax credit (PTC) “had little discernable effect on the wind

and biomass industries it was designed to support.”42 In a subsequent report, EIA found that, after

the late 1990s, the combined effect of the PTC with state RPS programs had been a major spur to

wind energy growth.43 On the House floor, RPS proponents argued that all states have sufficient

renewable energy resources and that the RPS had been recalibrated to include energy efficiency

measures to make it even more flexible. Supporters also cited a study by Wood Mackenzie

Corporation that showed RPS would lead to a net reduction in natural gas an electricity prices.44

They contended that cooperatives and municipal utilities had been excluded in order to make the

target easier to achieve. On the House floor, RPS opponents also contended that biomass power

technologies were not yet ready for commercial use and that certain usable forms of biomass

were excluded. Proponents acknowledged that there is a need to expand the definition of biomass

resources, and offered to do so in conference committee.45

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯǯȱřŘŘŗȱ

In November 2007, the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) submitted a report that

describes the potential impacts of the 15% RPS provision in H.R. 3221 (Title IX, Subtitle H). The

report found that the RPS provision:

... is similar in many respects to RPS proposals that have previously been analyzed by EIA.

Our analysis shows that the RPS, taken alone, tends slightly to increase projected electricity

AWEA. Statement of the American Wind Energy Association on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

July 31, 2007. 2 p. AWEA notes support from the National Venture Capital Association, League of Conservation

Voters, National Farmer’s Union, and United Steelworker’s Union. http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/

AWEA_statement_on_national_RPS_061207.html.

UCS. A 20 Percent National Renewable Electricity Standard Will Save Consumers Money and Reduce Global

Warming Emissions. May 2007. 2 p. (Not available on the Web.) UCS also found that a 20% RPS would have greater

environmental and job development benefits than a 15% standard.

EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2005. p. 58.

EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. (Section on “State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Update Through

2005.”) p. 27. Further discussion of the importance of the interaction between PTC and RPS is presented in the section

under Renewable Portfolio Standard entitled “Federal Support for State RPS Policies.”

Wood Mackenzie. The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. February 2007. 17 p. The Corporation has

a history of energy industry consulting, including studies on oil, natural gas, and electric power generation. (The report

is not available on the Web.)

Congressional Record. August 4, 2007. p. H9850.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

prices and costs by 2030, while tending to reduce the use of natural gas for electricity

generation and natural gas prices. Cumulative discounted residential energy expenditures

through 2030, which are projected to total $2,874 billion in the reference case, are unchanged

or fall slightly, with a reduction of approximately $400 million (.01 percent) in one of the

two RPS cases modeled.46

The report examined a case A, which assumed that energy efficiency credits would be claimed to

the maximum extent possible and would not result in significant sales reductions. Case B

assumed that no claims would be made for energy efficiency credits. The results for both cases

showed that RPS “tends to reduce projected natural-gas-fired electricity generation relative to the

EIA reference case.” EIA found that overall natural gas prices would be lower in the RPS cases

and that residential expenditures would be relatively flat, until late in the period, and would grow

by 0.4% to 0.8% by 2030.

EIA includes a caveat about its findings:

... it should be noted that the RPS proposal was modeled on a standalone basis, so its

possible interactions with other policy changes proposed in H.R. 3221 or other bills were not

considered. For example, proposals to increase the use of transportation fuels derived from

biomass could increase competition for the biomass supplies utilized in this analysis to

comply with the RPS targets.47

ȱ Ȭȱȱ

After the House completed action on H.R. 3221, informal bipartisan negotiations over the

omnibus energy bills began between the House and Senate. The RPS provision (Title IX, Subtitle

H) in the H.R. 3221 continues to be key issue. On December 1, 2007, the Ranking Member of the

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources stated that the House Leadership’s intent to

include an RPS led him to cease negotiations.48 Further, on December 3, 2007, the White House

reportedly announced that it may veto the negotiated bill, if it includes an RPS and certain other

provisions.49 On December 4, 2007, United Press International reported that, in a press

conference, DOE Secretary Bodman warned against the inclusion of “a narrow, one-size-fits-all

renewable portfolio standard.”50

EIA. Oil and Natural Gas Market Supply and Renewable Portfolio Standard Impacts of Selected Provisions of H.R.

3221. November 2007. p. 1. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/bmy/pdf/bmy.pdf.

EIA, p. 7.

The statement is available on the Committee’s website, at http://energy.senate.gov/public/

index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=235405&Month=12&Year=2007.

The White House. Letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Allan B. Hubbard. December 3, 2007. 2 p.; Also see:

E&E News PM. Energy Policy: White House Attacks Energy Bill Compromise. December 3, 2007.

http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/print/2007/12/03/1.

UPI. U.S. Energy Chief: Energy Bill Concerns. December 4, 2007. http://www.upi.com/International_Security/

Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2007/12/04/us_energy_chief_energy_bill_concerns/3426/.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŗȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱǻǼȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

(name redacted)

Specialist in Energy Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

ȱȱȱ

ŗŘȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.