"Bush really, really dislikes renewable power …"
The White House is prepared to veto the entire energy bill if it includes the House version of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RSP), as made clear in their
absurd petty predictable annoying less-than-useful letter to Speaker Pelosi. What is the House RPS? As noted earlier,
The bill would require utilities to provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. The provision exempts publicly owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Establishes a credit trading mechanism. Up to 4 percent — or roughly a quarter — of the mandate may be fulfilled with energy efficiency measures.
Bush says that is unacceptable, notwithstanding the fact that half the states already have an RPS, many much tougher than the House’s. The White House, however, insists
Inclusion of any mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard in energy legislation would have several adverse effects. A federal RPS is unfair application, is overly prescriptive in its definition living in low-carbon technologies, and does not allow states to opt out, would hurt consumers and undercut state decisions.
But what would the impact of the House’s RPS actually be? Back in June, the Administration’s Energy Information Administration modeled an earlier, tougher version of the House RPS (no 4% for efficiency) and found
Compared with the reference case, cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower.
Throw in energy efficiency, and I’d say the RPS will have no measurable impact on total residential (and non-residential) energy bills. But, of course, pollution would be cut sharply — 222 million metric tons in 2030. If that’s too painful for consumers, no wonder this bunch opposes any mandatory action whatsoever on greenhouse gas emissions. Sad!