Clean Power Needs More Compromise

• Author: Elliott P. Laws
• Position: Former EPA Assistant Administrator and former President for Safety, Health & Environment of Texaco, is Senior Counsel at Crowell & Moring
• Pages: 16-16

Page 16 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2009, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, March/April 2009

e president was right

to make this call, e ven

if it brings him into

conict with his most

ardent supporters

By Elliott P. Laws

Clean Power Needs

More Compromise

As this article is being written,

Congress is in the middle of de-

bating the size of, the scope of, and

surprisingly the need for President

Obama’s economic stimulus plan. It

is not clear how large the package will

be — current proposals range from

$819 billion to $922 billion — but

regardless of what form the econom-

ic stimulus package ultimately takes,

we can be fairly certain that it will

include an increased commitment

to all types of renewable energy.

Climate change remains the en-

vironmental issue that has received

the most attention lately, and per-

haps rightfully so. Yet in terms of the

stimulus package and an administra-

tion that must f‌ind a way to spur the

economy with “shovel-ready” proj-

ects, the opportunities presented by

climate change mitigation pale in

comparison to those of‌fered by de-

velopment of the renewable energy

sector. is is not to say that we

must choose one to the detriment of

the other. To the contrary, the ben-

ef‌its from renewable energy projects

are probably the best that we have

today to assist our ef‌forts in address-

ing climate change.

Without wading into the debate of

what should be classif‌ied as a “clean”

or “renewable” energy source (many

contest the inclusion of nuclear or

anything-coal into those categories)

it is safe to say that a signif‌icant por-

tion of spending is targeted for this

area. At this point, it is a moving

target as to what the actual num-

bers are, but after reviewing a num-

ber of dif‌ferent sources it appears to

me that between the House-passed

American Recovery and Reinvest-

ment Act and the version of that

bill being considered by the Sen-

ate, we are talking about total dol-

lars (including direct spending and

tax-related provisions) slightly in

excess of $100 billion. is includes

funding for clean energy programs

and tax incentives to promote clean

energy. While many criticize both

the size and focus of these priorities,

no objective observer can disagree

that this is a major commitment to

renewable energy in a time of dire

economic conditions.

Part of the “green” component of

the stimulus plan is an area that may

ultimately be more baf‌f‌lingly con-

troversial than the debates that will

surround nuclear and coal — that is,

the president’s call for 3,000 miles of

new transmission lines, part of the

$11 billion smart

grid project. I say

baf‌f‌ling because for

decades, construc-

tion of new trans-

mission lines in every

part of the country

has been hampered

by an ef‌fective, if

ad hoc, coalition of residents, en-

vironmentalists, conservationists,

and those af‌f‌licted with the highest

degree of NIMBY-itis. is lack of

reliability led to the huge blackout

of 2003, and smaller outages around

the country; utilities serving grow-

ing population centers of the coun-

try struggling to devise strategies to

meet the ever growing needs of an

ever growing populace; and serious

questions of how we will get green

power to the people who both want

and need it.

Regardless of our energy source

of choice, we will need a reliable

transmission grid to get the power

to where it is needed. Whether that

be from a wind farm that is helping

to power an oil ref‌inery or a coal-

f‌ired plant that is sending power to

be used in a plug-in hybrid electric

vehicle. I used those examples inten-

tionally, because electricity does not

discriminate as to its use. We in our

individual politics, likes and dislikes,

and biases can choose to say where

our preferences lie. Electricity goes

where it is needed, not considering

how we as individuals may view that

end user. If the power cannot reli-

ably move from generator to user we

have not accomplished any of our

goals.

e president was right to make

this call, even if brings him into po-

tential conf‌lict with some of his most

ardent supporters. We have had con-

cerns about the ability of our aging

and inadequate transmission grid

for years prior to the nascent green

energy push. We do not have the

ability to reliably transmit power to

every area of the country that needs

it now — and yet we are on the verge

of spending $100 billion to intro-

duce new sources of

energy, much of it in

remote areas far from

the people that need

to use it.

We cannot have it

both ways. We must

have more transmis-

sion capacity — that

is a need that exists regardless of

what form our new energy sources

take. Perhaps we can agree that the

need to f‌ight this particular battle

over transmission lines, in the long

run, is secondary to achieving the

needed increase in our ability to pro-

duce reliable clean energy. It has long

been held that politics is the art of

compromise. Our energy politics de-

mands that artistic touch right now

— from all interested stakeholders.

Elliott P. Laws, f o rm e r E PA

Assistant Administrator and former President

for Safety, Health & Environment of Texaco, is

Senior Counsel at C rowell & Moring. He can

be reached at elaw s@crowell.com.

T B  E