The Future of Renewable Energy in New England Alan Nogee Director, Climate & Energy Policy & Strategy Union of Concerned Scientists Mass. Restructuring Roundtable Boston, MA September 17, 2010 NOAA

Renewable Electricity Standards 29 States + D.C. NH: 23.8% by 2025 ME: 40% by 2017 15% by 2020 VT: 10% of 2005 sales by 2013 15% by 2015 10% by 2015 27.4% by 2025 RI: 16% by 2019 20.2% by 2025 MA: 20+% by 2025 10% by 2015 30% by 2015 10% by 2015 10% by 2015 CT: 23% by 2020 NJ: 22.5% by 2020 2% by 1999 8% by 2020 25% by 2025 MD: 20% by 2022 12.5% by 2025 25% by 2025 DE: 20% by 2019 20% by 2025 30% by 2020 DC: 20% by 2020 33% by 2020 20% by 2020 15% by 2021 VA: 15% by 2022 11.2% by 2021 15% by 2025 16.2% by 2020 *MN has a 30% by 2020 standard for Xcel Energy, and a 25% by 2025 standard for all other utilities. CO and NM have a 20% by 2020 standard for investor-owned utilities, and a 10% by 2020 standard for other utilities. OR has a 25% by 2025 standard for large utilities, and a 5% or 10% by 2025 standard for smaller utilities, depending on their size. ** In addition to their requirements, IA has a 1,000 MW (~10%) by 2010 goal, and ME has a 10% new resources by 2017 goal. IL, MO, and VA, and VT have renewable energy goals, with no specific enforcement measures. Standard Standard and Goal Voluntary Goal 5,880 MW (~5.5%) by 2015 HI: 40% by 2030

Renewable energy needed to meet state standards HI CA ~ 100,000 MW by 2025 NV AZ & NM OR & WA CO & MT TX MN IA & WI MO IL MI OH NC MD PA DC & DE NJ NY CT, RI & NH MA ME

Actual US wind capacity growth thru 2009 > DOE 20% by 2030 ramp-up goal 20x30 annual additions >2x projected 2009 level in DOE study 3-4 years ahead of schedule Actual annual additions Data source: AWEA

Wind energy generally competitive from 2000-2008 Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2008

Mass: all the ingredients for leading clean energy cluster Offshore wind potential: MA 200 GW N.E. 456 GW Source: NREL Source: Clean Energy Council

Care more about RE imports than FF imports Care more about RE imports than FF imports? 3rd in US for foreign coal imports $206 m leaving Massachusetts

Conclusion Drivers all still in place: diversity, security, global warming, economic development opportunities Recognize full value of diversity, hedging against avoiding fossil fuel price spikes, shortages avoiding carbon reg costs avoiding other fuel-cycle cleanup risks/costs Siting reform! Pioneer emerging technology with long-term low-cost potential gain competitive advantage, lower long-run costs Fair consideration of imports openness to transmission Find new ways to boost local renewables that avoid trade barrier litigation, risks; build on our strengths Consider additional life-cycle analysis, e.g., hydro Federal RES, tax extenders, carbon price!

Thank you. Any questions? Alan Nogee 617.301.8010 anogee@ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org On twitter: @alannogee There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. In closing, I’d like to say that we are on the brink of a major transformation of our energy economy. But we won’t achieve that transformation unless we demand that members of both major political parties put long-term and consistent policies in place to ensure this success. The world is not going to wait for us to decide.   Our investments in science and technology have led to unprecedented prosperity and health. Historically, we have demonstrated the courage to seek the next pioneering frontier even in the face of those who said it shouldn’t or couldn’t be done. We are now at a moment in our history when scientists are telling us that hesitation will cost us dearly. As before, we must not shrink from our responsibility. Thank you very much.

All generation construction costs have increased significantly – consider escalation risks of other lo-carbon techs