When looking at energy policy goals, we must first think about what our ultimate goals are. In the short term, everything sounds great: energy independence (freedom from foreign oil), combating climate change, environmental protection (in a broader sense), low-cost energy sources, job creation, etc. However, look at the greater implications, and suddenly you realize - in the words of Mick Jagger: “you can’t always get what you want.” These choices all have their consequences and as such - long-term goals must be aligned with the costs and limitations that are counterweighing these benefits’ choices.
Looking across the United States today, there is a piecemeal approach to renewable policy standards, an approach that has lent piecemeal results. Professor Fershee suggests, “State-by-state, sector-by-sector approaches may have reached the limit of effectiveness.” According to Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, “Strategy w/out tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics w/out strategy is the noise before defeat.” In essence, Professor Fershee adopts this message and suggests that long-term goals must be tackled with a mind towards the implications they bring. In other words, we must create a cohesive and forward-looking approach to address the implication issues we face today.
In his argument, he notes a few legislative presumptions for renewable energy resources: (1) technology should be considered, but not favored; (2) most people don’t understand technological options beyond the basics (their greater implications); (3) legislators are people (influenced for good & for bad); (4) legislation should largely be focused on what we know we need or be used to facilitate letting the market tell us what we need (i.e. allow energy clients save money if they transfer energy demand to a time when energy supply is at its lowest ebb by using smart electricity grid systems or similar technology).
So what are the impediments keeping us from implementing a renewable resource portfolio standard across the U.S.? They are broader than often realized, and include: physical restraints (infrastructure), technological prohibitions (technology is ready when its ready; financially feasible tomorrow doesn’t mean today), legal barriers & varying legal standards making implementation complicated and expensive; and even psychological problems. For example, how do we address people’s comfort level with efficiency, technology, etc.? What will happen when energy companies tell their clients - you must turn your lights off at this time… ? These concerns are all part of a greater problem, and that is implementation.
We know that U.S. interest often supports the goals put forth by resource conversation. However, the problem is balancing this interest with the costs they bring. Implementation can be largely aided through a nationwide policy - one that works to create a more coherent and cooperative approach. States have adopted various standards with varying degrees of success. The federal government can take these systems and work to improve where they have fallen short. The federal government can provide for consistency, and bring the federal “de minimis” bar up to a standard that will allow for conservation across the U.S.
In conclusion, Professor Fershee suggests that the key to solving this nationwide problem is to focus on implementation. Infrastructure is more than pipelines & transmission lines; it’s more than brick & mortar. It includes economic & social concerns. It also includes stimulus packages, and many other government actions. It is not until we remember the greater implications of our policy choices & adopt policies that balance all of these issues that we will be successful. Clearly, there are many impediments to a broad-based renewable portfolio standard; however, a federal standard for renewable portfolio standards can be a start to addressing these impediments.
