Senate Strikes a Blow in the Energy Battle

The Senate moved Thursday to require utilities to generate a larger share of their electricity from sources such as solar and wind power, a potentially significant shift in national energy policy.

The requirement for investor-owned utilities to produce at least 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2020 handed environmentalists their first important victory in the debate about comprehensive energy legislation. An effort to strip the bill of the requirement was defeated by a 58-40 vote.

“It is a strong message from the Senate that the country needs a minimum renewable energy standard,” said Alan Nogee, director of the clean energy program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Gary Skulnik, a spokesman for the environmental group Greenpeace, called the Senate vote a “step that has never been taken before” but said he is disappointed that lawmakers did not go further.

A Sierra Club representative was unenthusiastic about the Senate action. “It’s a pretty hollow victory,” said Debbie Boger, senior Washington representative for the environmental organization. Because of exemptions and other provisions, she asserted that the measure would result in “only 4% to 5% of new renewables” by 2020.

“We might be able to do that without any federal legislation,” Boger said.

For years, Congress has provided billions of dollars for tax subsidies and research to promote alternative energy sources, but it has never set such an aggressive goal for generating electricity from renewable sources, which include agricultural waste and geothermal energy.

Government-owned utilities and electric cooperatives, which produce about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, would be exempt from the requirement. The bill would allow investor-owned utilities to count their existing use of non-hydropower renewable sources toward the standard.

Opponents, who include the utility industry, warned that the requirement would drive up electricity costs and threaten power supplies in states that are not blessed with strong wind and bright sunshine.

Southern California Edison Co. said in a statement that the company has the largest portfolio of renewable energy sources, excluding hydropower, of any California utility and “is committed to doing more.” But the company said the legislation should include a price cap “to ensure that the large mandated demand for renewables in the face of supply constraints does not cause price spikes.”

Investor-owned utilities also objected that municipal-owned utilities, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, would be exempt.

Many environmentalists disputed the dire warnings and predicted that the requirement would reduce power plant emissions, including the “greenhouse gases”--primarily carbon dioxide--blamed for global warming. And, they said, it would diversify the nation’s energy mix, preventing the kind of price spikes that occurred last year in states that rely on a single source of fuel to generate electricity.

Most of the nation’s electricity is generated using coal, nuclear power or natural gas. About 2% comes from renewable sources, excluding hydropower.

Whether the provision ultimately becomes law remains in doubt.

Any energy bill passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate will face difficult negotiations with the Republican-dominated House, which last summer approved a version that did not require the use of alternative sources.

It is uncertain whether the Senate will even be able to pass an energy bill. A week ago, it soundly rejected tougher vehicle fuel economy standards, a priority of most Democrats. And GOP efforts to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, a goal of President Bush, appear doomed.

On Thursday, the Senate continued to work on the legislation at a snail’s pace, putting off any further action until after lawmakers return next month from their Easter recess.

A dozen states require a percentage of their electricity to be produced from renewable sources.

In California, Gov. Gray Davis this week endorsed legislation that would require the state’s investor-owned utilities to produce 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010, up from the 12% currently produced.

In an effort to gain broader support for the measure, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) modeled it after a Texas law signed by Bush when he was governor.

But the White House joined the majority of Senate Republicans in opposing the requirement, contending that the decision should be up to individual states.

During the three days of debate, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) branded the requirement a case of “Soviet-style command economy.”

“This legislation is costly . . . [and] imposes a massive new regulation of what we can buy in this country. It is anti-American,” he said. “Let the free market work.”

But Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) responded: “The free market has allowed us to import 57% of our oil supply from overseas.”

Without the increased use of alternative sources, Dorgan said, the United States is destined to live with an energy policy of “yesterday forever . . . just dig and drill.”

Tom Gray, deputy executive director of the American Wind Energy Assn., said he is optimistic that a renewable portfolio standard--the official name for the requirement--can survive a House-Senate conference.

“It is unlikely that a major energy bill will win approval without some significant provision that is beneficial to the environment,” he said. “And the [standard] is the main candidate at this point.”