Renewable portfolio standard: 2 sides in one nation

When it comes to alternative renewable green energy, in the United States there are basically 2 factions. I think that a good example of the 2 sides can be seen in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Taking a look at Michigan, a state that has been devastated with lost manufacturing jobs; there is the fact of a lack of initiative. In 1991 Iowa became the first state to create a renewable portfolio standard, effectively requiring the state to seek out and generate a portion of it’s energy usage from wind, solar, biofuel and other renewable energy sources. 17 years later there are 24 states that have their own renewable portfolio standards; Michigan is not one of them.

The fact that Michigan continues not to have a renewable portfolio standard flies in the face of Republican Gov. John Engler’s effort with NextEnergy, a nonprofit that sought to accelerate development of an alternative energy industry in Michigan. Add to that the 2005 State of the State speech by Gov. Jennifer Granholm which pushed for the creation of a renewable portfolio standard.

Yet with renewable energy growing at a pace of roughly 30% a year and $9 billion invested last year in wind energy alone in the U.S., Michigan has yet to take part. But to be fair Gov. Granholm is recently quoted as stating that she is viewing this area in a Machiavellian manner,

“I think this is such a moment for us to capitalize on, creating this whole new sector here," Granholm added, warming to her cause. "And if other states have done it without the resources that we have, then we can certainly explode onto the scene."

On the other end of the spectrum is Pennsylvania. The State Senate has already passed legislation advancing wind power, and other clean energy sources like solar and biofuels. The State House is currently debating their version with $30 million for grants and loans to develop wind energy and the manufacture of wind energy turbines passed on February 13th by a landslide vote. In addition there was $5 million for low-interest loans to people who install more energy efficient systems to heat their homes. $25 million is to go for high-performance "green" buildings of which 300 buildings are estimated to be built.

In total the debate is currently centering on $850 million for the bill that would promote energy conservation and increase the types and amount of renewable energy sources. And with that improvement it is also noted that,

“For every dollar we spend in wind energy investment, we can leverage 12 in the private sector," said Majority Whip Keith McCall, D-Carbon.”

And there is the crux of the issue. Billions of dollars and new jobs are being generated by the use of renewable clean green energy sources. The mandate of states requiring generation from these sources has been beneficially working since 1991. And growth is rising at an enviable rate throughout the country. Yet 22 States continue to support a dependency on oil and coal.

Considering the 2 examples above, the reasoning of the remaining 22 states seems faulty at best. Maybe the Machiavellian view exposed by Gov. Granholm is in fact acting in the best interest of the people, and required by more Governors. But with so much growth and the resulting positive effects on the economy and environment, we can only expect that resistance will not endure.