Renewables play a role in North Carolina

The criticism of "green energy" and North Carolina's Renewable Efficiency Portfolio Standard REPS is that it's too expensive. In considering how to meet our growing demand for electricity we must recognize that all new electricity generation will be more expensive than the electricity coming from existing decades-old coal- and nuclear-fueled power plants. The question we need to be asking is: "What's the best resource mix to meet our future electricity needs that makes us more secure, yields stable energy prices and creates more jobs in North Carolina?"

No one resource — whether coal, nuclear, energy efficiency or renewables — will be the best or do the entire job. As one option, renewable energy is proving itself to be a clean, cost-effective energy source in the state. In addition, North Carolinians overwhelmingly 75 percent or higher in recent polls support our transition to using clean energy sources and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

All forms of energy are heavily subsidized, but this is not apparent, because nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies are written permanently into tax codes while renewable subsidies must be reauthorized every few years. The Environmental Law Institute estimates subsidies for fossil fuels in 2002-2008 were $72.5 billion compared to $12.2 billion for renewable energy excluding ethanol.

Competitive markets and investors have spoken loudly on which energy resources are preferred. In 2009, wind, solar and other renewables accounted for 42 percent of all new U.S. generating capacity, natural gas 43 percent and coal only 13 percent. The U.S. installed 10 gigawatts GW of windpower in 2009 - nearly twice the 6 GW of coal added from 2000 - 2009. Nuclear power's share, meanwhile, fell to around 13 percent in 2008, according to International Atomic Energy Agency data.

Critics complain that the cost of North Carolina's Renewable Efficiency Portfolio Standard is too high, without saying what would be less costly. Here are the facts: The cost of solar energy has fallen by over 60 percent since 2007 and all renewables are expected to decline further over the coming years, while the cost of new coal and nuclear generation continue to rise.

Last month, the "renewable energy rider" charge on my Duke Energy power bill was $.27, or $3.24 per year. My electric bill has changed more than $4 in one month due to "fuel adjustment" charges. Similar to the situation with subsidies, the cost of renewable energy appears on our bill, but the volatile cost of nuclear, coal and natural gas fuels is hidden in an innocuous fuel charge.

North Carolina's REPS law has clearly been effective. Earlier this year, the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association conservatively identified 12,500 renewable energy and energy efficiency jobs in all 100 counties of our state. Over 1,100 clean energy companies are contributing more than $3.5 billion into our economy - made possible in large part by the REPS.

Do opponents who are arguing for repeal of the REPS want to put these companies out of business and send their employees to the unemployment line? Clearly, North Carolina should not walk away from one of the fastest-growing industries in our state and the world.

One part of the REPS that is inefficient and wasteful is the part that allows 25 percent of the power utilities' clean energy to come from outside of North Carolina. This "out of state" provision was introduced and lobbied for by conservatives who said it would lower costs. North Carolina is the only state that allows this, but more importantly, it goes against the intention of the law to create jobs and promote clean energy in N.C.

Let's do have a discussion in the 2011 General Assembly about our energy future - but it must be with accurate information.