Senate Backs Using Renewable Energy to Generate Electricity

Over the objections of the White House and utility industry, the Senate voted Thursday to require that 10% of the nation’s electricity be generated from alternative energy sources -- such as solar and wind power -- by 2020.

The vote complicates efforts to produce the first overhaul of national energy policy in a decade.

Though the provision helps solidify Democratic support for the bill in the Senate, it is likely to become an issue during negotiations on a final measure with the House. The House energy bill, approved in April, does not include a similar requirement.

The provision was welcomed by environmentalists, who have found little else they like in either version of the energy bills. Each includes measures aimed at promoting conservation and greater use of cleaner energy sources. But environmentalists have complained that the bills are too heavily tilted toward increased production of traditional energy sources, such as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power.

Most of the nation’s electricity is generated using coal, nuclear power or natural gas. Renewable energy accounts for more than 2% of the nation’s electricity supply.

Opponents of the requirement that more electricity come from alternative sources contended it could drive up utility costs, especially in regions where the climate did not produce strong wind or extensive sunshine.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) complained that utilities that could not meet the 10% standard would have to buy credits from power companies that exceed it -- and would pass on that cost to consumers.

Alexander questioned the practicality of the amendment, saying, “I’m not anxious to go home to Tennessee and say, ‘We are worried ... that natural gas prices are high, and our solution: Tens of thousands of windmills.’ ”

The provision, known as the “renewable portfolio standard,” passed by a 52-48 vote.

Virtually all of the Senate’s 44 Democrats supported it, including Californians Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. But backing from nine Republicans proved crucial to its passage.

The amendment’s supporters said it would help prevent price spikes that could occur from utilities relying on a single energy source. The supporters also said the provision would reduce emissions from power plants that burned fossil fuels. Such emissions have been blamed for global warming.

The amendment’s chief sponsor, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), said, “We are trying ... to implement a policy to develop an energy future for the nation that will rely on our own resources ... that would provide for cleaner air and water.”

Opposing the provision, the Bush administration said that setting a standard for use of renewable energy sources was “best left to the states.” About 18 states have passed “renewable portfolio standard” laws. In California, private utilities are required to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017.

Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, a utility association that opposed the measure, said the close vote underscored “concerns about the costs for electricity customers and the potential for a wealth transfer from regions of the country where renewable energy sources are scarce to regions where they are abundant.”

The GOP senators who voted for the provision were Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norman Coleman of Minnesota, John Ensign of Nevada, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Also supporting it was the Senate’s lone Independent, James Jeffords of Vermont.

The two Democrats opposing the amendment were Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

The requirement for utilities to generate more electricity from renewable sources is one of several issues that finds the Republican-controlled Senate acting against the wishes of the administration on energy legislation, as well as differing with the House version.

For instance, the Senate next week is expected to add $14 billion in tax breaks to the bill, roughly double the amount the White House supports.

The Senate tax breaks are geared more toward promoting conservation and the production of more energy from alternatives sources. The $8 billion in tax breaks in the House bill would mainly benefit the oil and gas industries.

The Senate energy bill includes a provision opposed by the administration that would direct the president to find ways to reduce, by 2015, the country’s projected demand for oil by 1 million barrels a day. The House bill does not contain that provision.

The Senate voted 53 to 47 on Thursday to reject an effort to set a goal of cutting projected oil imports for 2025 by 40%.