Nick Flanders
AP Government
Mrs. Edwards
Public Policy Research Paper: Alternative Energy
The idea of alternative energy is an issue that is rapidly gaining attention due to its urgency.
Solving this issue has, for a long time been of little importance to the government, but now it is becoming crucial. The most effective way to solve this issue is through government bipartisanship support for a transition to a clean energy future. The focus of this support is on the subsidy programs and restriction on both fossil fuels and soft energy sources. Another issue entangled within alternative energy is the vested interests of the big businesses. This leads to lobbying within the government and the hiring of scientists to doctor the results of experiments to disprove global warming.
The current situation of this issue is not going well in America. The United States government previously had subsidies for wind power, but since January 1, 2014, the government decided not to reinstate these subsidy programs. While countries and organizations around the world are proving that the transition to renewable energy is within reach, the United States government is ensnared by the system of big business and lobbying.
We can see that to avoid the gridlock in Congress, President Obama is using his presidential powers to work around Congress. He created a plan and issued an executive order for businesses to “get
20% of their energy from renewable sources by fiscal year 2020.” Despite the fact that this action will not make much of a dent in the big picture, it does showcase his proof that he is trying to solve climate change problems. Many scientists agree that a “carbon tax or emissions trading law [would] make a real

dent in the country’s emissions” (Hennessey). However, a law regarding tax, can solely come from the
House of Representatives.
A question that must be considered is whether the government should be involved in regulating the energy market, or if it should be left to the free market. The idea of having a government supported system is seems best. Many researchers suggest that “Congress maintain the existing clean energy investment and production tax credits, and make them permanent…to provide certainty to the private sector and ensure that investment dollars keep flowing to drive clean energy technologies down the cost curve” (Pfund).
There are politicians and businesses that believe that clean energy is not the solution for our current situation. These people typically have vested interests with The American Legislative Exchange
Council, (ALEC) which is an organization comprised of hard energy companies, such as Koch
Industries and Exxon Mobil. Their mission is to block the “US Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards… and the agency’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act” (Baker). This large conglomerate organization is set on blocking any political activity involving alternative energy, through the act of lobbying.
There are many examples of politicians, organizations, and big businesses who are against renewable energy and are using a biased studies to convince the public that alternative energy is bad.
This style of politics, in which vested interests create high stakes, researchers will make claims to scare the public. These claims typically are based on ideas such as drastic increases in the amount people would have to pay for their energy when in reality, it is estimated that the cost will only “increase $1.72 a month” (Mistler).

Media agencies often provide their own bias, based on their political leanings. By looking at a
FoxNews article, a notoriously Republican agency, we can see that they are extremely critical of alternative energy, which is a program associated with Democrats. Within the article, we can see that they attack “[Energy] Secretary Moniz” as “either ignorant or “intentionally deceptive” for not supporting “conventional energy sources” (FoxNews.com). On the other hand, by looking at a smaller, less media focused site such as PBS we see less bias. The PBS Newshour article seems much more balanced if not completely unprejudiced. The article seemed focused on simply providing straight facts such as “the White House announced Wednesday an initiative to provide private companies and local governments better access to already public climate data” (PBS Newshour). This description seems nonbiased, but almost pro-Democratic compared to the harsh nature of the FoxNews article.
Americans are practically evenly split on the controversy between energy production and environmental conservation, with 46% supporting energy production and 45% supporting environmental protection (Jeffrey). There is currently a strong distinction when the idea of political party association is involved. Democrats supported the conservation 64% to 28% while Republicans favored energy production 71% to 25% (Jeffrey). However, this split has not always been present. According to a Pew
Research poll, back in 2008 both Republicans and Democrats had at least 80% supports for alternative energy research (Pew Research Center).
We can see that pressure from the struggling economy seems to be leading people to care less about the environment and more about keeping prices low and creating jobs. This can explain the drastic decrease of Republican support for increased alternative energy research since 2009. The issue is a fighting point for Democrats as seen by Obama-Biden’s New Energy for America Plan. However, the dramatic decrease in Republican support for alternative energy research has been a massive impediment

to any attempts of progress made by the Democrats. The lack of bipartisanship on this issue hinders any progress until the Republicans feel that environmental conservation outweighs energy production.
The Democratic Party supports a clean energy future in which we protect the environment by becoming energy independent and then researching new alternative energy technologies. They seek to achieve this through the New Energy for American Plan which moves America toward energy independence and dependence on renewable energy sources (Change.gov). The Republican Party’s stance on energy is that it is against any carbon emission limits because it is antithetical to the policy of a laissez-faire economy. The Republican Party also pushes for American energy independence but mainly through the private sector.
There are many interest groups involved in the issue of alternative energy. The Union of
Concerned Scientists Clean Energy Program (UCS) is one of the most prominent and trusted groups.
Their purpose is to solve difficult problems such “finding sustainable ways to feed, power and transport ourselves” though science and the help people throughout the country (UCS). They implement a grassroots strategy through their membership of over 400,000 citizens and scientists from around the
United States. The organization also focuses on providing truthful and accurate research on alternative energy and climate change, rather than trusting the research done by big business sponsored scientists.
They use this research to educate the public and politicians about alternative energy.
The other prominent interest group is the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).
This group is a conglomerate of corporations and organizations which support the transition to alternative energy. The group uses the reputation and influence of the large corporations to educate
America on the “renewable energy community…technology, finance, policy and market development”
(ACORE). These connections and partnerships with large corporations are also used to lobby their ideas on renewable energy technology and policy in the Legislative Branch.

In the recent years, we have begun to see a lot happening throughout the government, on the issue of alternative energy. The Legislative Branch, being extremely gridlocked, has had trouble getting much done, but there at least has been legislation proposed and considered. There are a couple key pieces of legislation that represent what the Legislative Branch has at least tried to achieve. S. 1595 and
H.R. 3654: Renewable Electricity Standard Act of 2013 are identical bills which were introduced and referred to committee in late 2013. These bills, assigned to the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural
Resources and the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee of Energy and Power, are still waiting in this stage of the process. These bills propose that retail electricity suppliers will be required to gradually increase their percent of electricity generated from renewable sources, beginning with 6% in 2014, up to at least 25% by 2025.
Another important bill that the Legislative Branch is working on is S. 1627: American
Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act. This bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee of
Energy and Natural Resources in late October, 2013. This bill proposes a similar gradual transition plan as S. 1595, but also includes stimulus packages for capital investment in renewable energy technology.
The Executive Branch has been much more productive then the Legislative Branch because it can use Executive Orders and leadership to make its progress. The current administration has a plan to move America toward energy independence through an “all of the above” policy (Barack Obama). The plan also dictates that America will “reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 (Change.gov).
This long term plan shows that Obama is not necessarily worried about the current happenings in alternative energy, but more interested in providing a good environment for future generations. The strategy plans to invest “$150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future” (Change.gov). Obama’s plans are already creating positive change because “American dependence on foreign oil… is at its lowest level in nearly 20 years” (Energy, Climate Change and Our

Environment). This plan risks possible short term economic declines during a transition to alternative and renewable energies, which is particularly dangerous in the currently terrible economy.
The Bush Administration focused on moving toward American energy independence, specifically reducing the dependency on foreign petroleum. Bush laid out a plan in 2007 which would encourage citizens to “cut gasoline consumption … by 20% over 10 years” (President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address). Also in Bush’s 2006 State of the Union, he announced the Advanced Energy
Initiative which would initiate a “22% increase in clean energy research at the Department of Energy”
(George Bush 2006 State of the Union). Despite these claims, Bush did not impose any significant regulations on the emissions from coal plants or other sources of pollution. Despite talking a lot about improving the environment, he did not initiate very many actual changes to the policy affecting it.
The Judicial Branch also has some influence on the issue of alternative energy through their ruling on any court cases related to it. An important case that is currently ongoing is between a
Massachusetts energy provider, NSTAR, and the “Town of Barnstable, businesses, residents” (Parker).
NSTAR recently made a contract with Cape Wind, an offshore wind farm in Massachusetts, despite it costing up to three times what renewable energy producers out of state could provide. The law suit says that the state essentially forced NSTAR to buy in state energy which is an “illegal discrimination in favor of an in-state business, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution” (Parker). A verdict has not yet been reached as the suit is still in progress.
Another important case is ATI vs Epel . The state of Colorado recently created a mandate for 30% of the electricity sold by utility companies, to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. In response to this mandate, a pair of grassroots lobbying organizations are filing this lawsuit against the state of
Colorado claiming that the mandate is unconstitutional because it ”discriminates against other energy resources that are ‘less costly, less polluting, safer and more reliable’ both inside and outside the state”

which is a violation of the commerce clause. This case also has not officially begun yet so there is no ruling yet.
Bureaucratic agencies are a key part to any government action. One of the main agencies that would be heavily involved in alternative energy production would be the Bureau of Land Management which is a part of the Department of the Interior. This agency would be involved because the majority of alternative energy sources require large expanses of land, such as for wind farms or solar panel arrays.
Renewable energy producers’ would also have to go through state level bureaucracy such as the
California Energy Commission. The good thing is that it would not require a large budgetary support because it is simply selling federal land for private use, which could actually make money. There would have very little effect on tax payers for this reason. Companies would also have to navigate through agencies such as the Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Division along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The majority of the relationship between the energy producers and the federal bureaucracy would be establishing the ownership of the land on which the energy is gathered, stored, and transmitted, and the sharing of information on how much energy is being produced.
In conclusion, this problem needs much more government support and attention as it is becoming increasingly urgent. The government should attempt to solve this problem through government support and subsidies for further research and development of alternative energy, as well as fighting to implement it throughout the country. The government will face a lot of resistance from the influential big businesses which have a lot of vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, but the government should do its best to compromise and bring America to energy independence and a clean energy future.

Works Cited
ACORE | American Council on Renewable Energy. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.acore.org/>.
2014.
"Alliance to Save Energy | Using Less. Doing More." Alliance to Save Energy. Web. 18 Mar.
Baker, Brandon. "ALEC Agenda Reveals Anti-Renewable Energy Strategies." EcoWatch .
Ecobusiness, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. <http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/06/alec-agenda-anti-renewable-energystrategies-december-summit/>.
Borenstein, Seth. "White House Harnesses Power of Data for New Climate Change Initiative."
PBS Newshour. PBS, 19 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
"Change.gov - The Official Web Site of the U.S. Presidential Transition." Energy &
Environment. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/>.
"Democratic Party on Energy & Oil." Democratic Party on Energy & Oil. On The Issues, Web.
19 Mar. 2014. <http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Energy_%2B_Oil.htm>.

"Energy, Climate Change and Our Environment." The White House. The White House. Web. 10
Apr. 2014. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy>.
Font, Vince. "The Solar Energy Outlook for 2014." Renewable Energy World . Web.
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-solar-energy-outlook-for-2014>.
"George W. Bush: Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the 2006 State of the
Union." George W. Bush: Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union.
Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65090>.
Hennessey, December 5, Kathleen. "Obama Orders Agencies to Increase Renewable Energy
Use." Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles Times, 05 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obama-renewable-energy-use-
20131205%2C0%2C3896287.story>.
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Americans Still Divided on Energy-Environment Trade-Off."GallupPolitics.
Gallup, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/161729/americans-dividedenergy-environment-trade-off.aspx>.
Mistler, Steve. "Anti-renewable-energy Report... Was Funded by Fossil Fuel Interests. “Central
Maine News . Morning Sentinel. Web. 14 Feb. 2014. <http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/energyreport-cited-by-lepage-under-scrutiny_2012-11-26.html?pagenum=full>.
"Obama Proposes Billions More in FY 2015 Tax Incentives for Alternative Energy Vehicles."
Fox News. FOX News Network, 09 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Parker, Audra. "Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound." Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.saveoursound.org/press_releases/reader.php?id=29>.

"Partisan Divide Over Alternative Energy Widens." Pew Research Center. People Press, Web. 19
Mar. 2014. <http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/>.
Pfund, Nancy, and Ben Healey. "Yale Insights." Should the Government Subsidize Alternative
Energy?
Yale. Web. <http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/should-government-subsidize-alternativeenergy>.
"President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24
Jan. 2007. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301075.html>.
"UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists." Union of
Concerned Scientists . Web. 19 Mar. 2014. <http://www.ucsusa.org/>.