Bill Mandating 25% of U.S. Energy from Renewables by 2025 Introduced in House

By Ucilia Wang

Two Congressmen have authored a bill that would require 25 percent of the electricity generated in the United States to come from renewable sources by 2025.

Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Todd Platts, R-Pa., introduced the American Renewable Energy Act on Wednesday. If passed, the legislation would take effect in 2012. Markey also introduced another bill that would require the nation to cut its power use by 15 percent by 2020. The reductions would result from setting new codes for buildings and appliances, and from utility-run or other programs that encourage conservation.

The lawmakers claim that the two bills together would create more than 500,000 jobs while saving people more than $180 billion in energy costs.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has endorsed the renewable energy bill, saying it would increase renewable energy generation by 135 percent above what current federal and state policies would create.

The two lawmakers hope a new administration would make it possible to pass the two bills. They tried to get a renewable energy standard passed in 2007, but it didn’t receive enough support in the Senate, reported Grist.

Comments

[Firat Ünlü:]

Why don't they legislate sunshine all year round?

Feb 05 04:13 PM

[Stockguy456:]

It is only a matter of time!

Feb 05 04:33 PM

[happycajun:]

Because they are hitting the moonshine all year round!

Feb 05 05:07 PM

[Duude:]

So, what the Union of Concerned Scientists is really saying is that these bills will fail to deliver. Renewable energy would have to already be over 10% of our current use in order for a 135% increase to equate to 25% of our energy use. I also find the silly and unsupportable numbers $180 billion in savings total crap. The increase cost for utilities that emit carbon will certainly be passed on to the consumer who has no choice but to pay. The 15% cut in conservation even if achievable will only be accomplished through higher costs to the consumer. I certainly don't have a problem in raising the cost of incremental electricity for those that are determined to occupy and live in a 20,000 square foot home, (Do you hear that Hollywood & chief alarmist Al Gore?), but if whatever new carbon tax is applied is offset by low energy users or job producing businesses, I am vehemently opposed.

Feb 05 06:16 PM

[Paul Killinger:]

Last I checked our renewables constituted .35 of our energy portfolio, and our goal was to double that to 7/10's of ONE percent!

But I'm all for it. Indeed, let's mandate 100% so we can get this inanity over with and completely bury our economy.

Feb 06 10:21 AM

[je:]

I fully support alternative energy and think that this action is way past due. It will create jobs and those who sre against it have not come to terms with what conventional generating costs will be with the carbon fuels if they remain as they are now. This is the future and change is hard for a lot of people.

Feb 06 10:22 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

Our new President said he'd outlaw coal and double electric rates. And he's been a man of his word so far, I'd say.

Feb 06 10:23 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

JE,

Oh, it's going to be hard for alot of people alright. Like everyone trying to earn a living in the USA.

Feb 06 10:25 AM

[je:]

Paul,

I agree people are goingto have a tough time with employment and earning a wage but I think alternative energy is part of the answer all the way around.

Feb 06 10:55 AM

[Beam me up ...:]

a national RPS is mostly rhetoric and doesn't make a lot of sense. There are already RPS' in place in most of the states so another federal bureaucracy to measure what's already being done elsewhere simply makes no sense. And the job creation numbers are too bogus to even address. Solar PV capacity will be greater than demand beginning this year so prices will drop, possibly precipitously over the next 5 years so those that pass the 'fogged mirror' test should think about buying soon. Wind turbines already make a lot of sense at the large scale and now the small scale is rapidly gaining acceptance economically .. etc etc. Market force momentum is already in force so we should back off more worthless politicing. Let's give Calif and Maryland their awards for renewables incentive innovation in the past 10 years - they got things going and now the payoff is on the way.

Feb 06 10:57 AM

[jack kreg:]

talk about mandating economic collapse??

Of course, what would you expect from Congressman Markey.

As far as the (soviet) union of concerned scientists?
mostly found in higher education where they are totally supported by the generousity of taxpayers. They are just voting their pocketbook.

Feb 06 12:14 PM

[KNUTT:]

Obama. Oh! What a wonderful fellow. I say 100% renewables by next Tuesday and 300 mpk(miles per kilowatt) by next Saturday. I also say put the global warming scam to a peaceful rest and get on with true science. Al and his global warming con-artists buddies (Soros, et al.) surely have scoffed up enough of the over 300 billion taxpayers dollars our friendly Government passed out while tilting at windmills to satisfy them. Incidentally. I have a real deal on photons to run your photo-voltaic systems when the sun don't shine.

Feb 06 12:36 PM

[mediapro:]

All of these witty and pithy attempts (snipes) at a reasonable proposal forget about some long-standing energy subsidy preferrences that seem to never pass through the lips of people who can't even wait a month beofre spouting off fromthe same kettle of steam we've heard for most of the past thrity years.

For those and others who only look at what they can tear down tear through this:

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simly need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue. Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid and smart energy technologies. Even an oil guy as purile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted to wake up and smell the coffee.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security? Are you considering that tax subsidy when you make your observations on energy conservation mandates and stimulus investment?

Feb 06 03:27 PM

[je:]

Mediapro spoke a lot of truth in a very short space.

Feb 06 03:49 PM

[33Nick:]

Come on, they're fighting irrelevancy...


On Feb 05 05:07 PM happycajun wrote:

> Because they are hitting the moonshine all year round!

Feb 06 07:21 PM

[longtermstocks:]

Put americans to work building the new energy infrastructure!!!!!

Feb 07 01:17 AM

[mediapro:]

Thanks JE.

You know it's odd that at least two people read your comment, but no one has stepped up to the challenge I put out there.

Any bold supply-sider out there ready to refute the four contentions put forward?

Mediapro


On Feb 06 03:49 PM JE wrote:

> Mediapro spoke a lot of truth in a very short space.

Feb 08 07:27 PM