Power to the people: Electric utility restructuring and the commitment to renewable energy

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 94-116

  Heiman, Michael K ^a   Solomon, Barry D ^b  

^a DICKINSON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions; Electric utility; Energy policy; Renewable energy; Wind power

Indexed keywords

ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY POLICY; RENEWABLE RESOURCE;

EID: 25144506880     PISSN: 00045608     EISSN: 14678306     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401006.x     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. American Public Power Association. 2001. Shades of green: Public power's environmental profile. Washington, DC: American Public Power Association.
2. _. 2002. Public power costs less. In Annual Directory & Statistical Report, 32. Gainesville, FL: Naylor Publications.
3. American Wind Energy Association. 2001. Federal power agency issues largest wind solicitation ever. News release, February 23, 2001. Washington, DC: AWEA. http://www.awea.org/news (last accessed 1 June 2003).
4. _. 2002. U.S. wind industry ends most productive year, more than doubling previous record for new installations. News release, January 15, 2002. Washington, DC: AWEA. http://www.awea.org/news (last accessed 1 June 2003).
5. Bensinger, C. 1999. What is electric utility restructuring? What's at stake? The Workbook (Southwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, NM) 24 (3): 66-70.
6. Berg, C. 2002. PPL fights Montana vote. The Morning Call (Allentown, PA), September 29, 2002.
7. Berman, D., and J. O'Connor. 1996. Who owns the Sun? People, politics, and the struggle for a solar economy. White River Junction, VT Chelsea Green.
8. Bird, L., and B. Swezey. 2003. Green power marketing in the United States: A status report. 6th ed. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
9. Blair, P. D. 1993. U.S. energy policy perspectives for the 1990s. In Making national energy policy, ed. H. H. Landsberg, 7-40. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
10. Blowers, A., D. Lowry, and B. D. Solomon. 1991. The international politics of nuclear waste. London: Macmillan.
11. Bolinger, M., and R. Wiser. 2002. Production incentive auctions to support large-scale renewables projects in Pennsylvania and California. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Clean Energy Group, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/cases (last accessed 1 June 2003).
12. Bolinger, M., R. Wiser, L. Milford, M. Stoddard, and K. Porter. 2001. Clean energy funds: An overview of state support for renewable energy, LBNL-47705. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division.
13. Borenstein, S. 2002. The trouble with electricity markets: Understanding California's restructuring disaster. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1): 191-211.
14. Bradley, R. Jr. 1997. Renewable energy: Not cheap, not green. Policy Analysis # 280. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute.
15. Bradshaw, T. K. 2001. Communities, complexity, sustainability, and the California energy crisis. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Cleveland, OH, November 8-11, 2001.
16. _. 2002. Prospects for public power after deregulation. Presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore, MD, November 20-24, 2002.
17. Brennan, T. J. 2001. The California electricity experience, 2000-01: Education or diversion? Report. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
18. Brennan, T.J., K. L. Palmer, and S. A. Martinez. 2002. Alternating currents: Electricity markets and public policy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
19. Briesemeister, J. 2001. Yes, 'California type' energy problems can happen in Texas and every other state. Report, Austin, TX: Consumers Union, Southwest Regional Office.
20. Brown, L. R. 2001. Eco-Economy: Building an economy for the earth. New York: W.W, Norton.
21. Brown, M. A., M. D. Levine, J. P. Romm, A. H. Rosenfeld, and J. G. Koomey. 1998. Engineering-economic studies of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Opportunities and challenges, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 23:287-385.
22. Bupp, I. C., and J. C. Derian. 1978, Light water: How the nuclear dream dissolved. New York: Basic Books.
23. Burtraw, D., K. L. Palmer, and M. Heintzelman, 2000. Electricity restructuring: Consequences and opportunities for the environment. Discussion Paper 00-39. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
24. Caldwell, J. 1999. How the rules of wholesale competition penalize green power. Clean Power Journal, Summer, 1999. Sacramento: Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. http://www.ceert.org/pubs/cpjournal/99/ summer/caldwell.html (last accessed 1 June 2003).
25. California Consumer Power &. Conservation Financing Authority. 2002. Clean growth; Clean energy for California's economic future. Sacramento, CA.
26. California Energy Commission. 2002. Annual project activity report to the legislature: Renewable energy program. Sacramento, CA.
27. Casten, T. R. 1998. Turning off the heat: Why America must double energy efficiency to save money and reduce global warming. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
28. Cheney, D. 2001. Conservation is not a sound basis for an energy policy. Address by Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, before the Annual Meeting of the Associated Press, Toronto, April 30, 2001. Vital Speeches of the Day 67 (15): 452-55.
29. Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future. 2002. Giving thanks. E-Cubed Newsletter (Harrisburg, PA) 4 (23): November 22, 2003. http://www.pennfuture.org (last accessed 1 June 2003).
30. Clemmer, S., B. Paulos, and A. Nogee. 2000. Clean power surge: Ranking the states. Report. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
31. Cleveland, C. J., and R. K. Kaufmann. 2003. Oil supply and oil politics: Deja Vu all over again. Energy Policy 31 (6): 485-89.
32. Cooper, M. N. 2001a. Behind the headlines of electricity restructuring. Report. Washington, DC: Consumers Federation of America.
33. _. 2001b. Electricity deregulation and consumers: Lessons from a hot spring and a cool summer. Report. Washington, DC: Consumers Federation of America.
34. Coyle, E. P. 1995. PoolCo revisited: Who will regulate PoolCo-The FBI? Public Utilities Fortnightly 133 (6): 24 ff.
35. _. 2000, Price discrimination, electronic redlining, and price fixing in deregulated electric power. For the American Public Power Association, Washington, DC.
36. Dahlberg, C. P. 2002. City utilities resist 'green' power. The Sacramento Bee, October 12, 2002, A-1.
37. Danish Wind Industry Association. 2002. Wind energy news archives 2002. News release, update December 12, 2002. http://www.windpower.dk/news/archive6. htnrfmuch (last accessed 1 June 2003).
38. Duane, T. 2002. California's power play is a crisis of conventional wisdom. Public Affairs Report (Institute of Governmental Studies, U.C. Berkeley) 42 (1): 1, 11-14.
39. Dunn, S. 2000. The hydrogen experiment. Worldwatch 13 (6): 14-25.
40. Edison Electric Institute. 1976. Economic growth in the future. Executive summary. New York: Edison Electric Institute, Committee on Economic Growth, Pricing and Energy Use.
41. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2001. Annual energy oudook 2002 with projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
42. _. 2002. Annual energy review 2001. DOE/EIA-0384 (2001). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. _. 2003. Annual energy outlook 2003 with projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383 (2003). Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
44. European Parliament. 2001. Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. As adopted September 27, 2001. EN: Official Journal of the European Communities, L283: 33-40. Brussels: The European Parliament.
45. European Wind Energy Association. 2001. Response to the European Commission's green paper: Toward a European strategy for the security of energy supply, November 2001. Brussels: European Wind Energy Association.
46. Farber, D., and J. Weeks. 2001. A graceful exit? Decommissioning nuclear power reactors. Environment 43 (6): 8-21.
47. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2002. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission working paper on standardized transmission service and wholesale electric market design. (Docket No. RM01-12-00). Washington, DC.
48. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. 2000. Act on granting priority to renewable energy sources. Primer on the Act. Berlin: Germany.
49. Fenn, P. 2001. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, neighbors become nation's largest clean power purchaser with community choice agreement. Local Power News, Feb. 2001. Published on-line by Local Power (Oakland, CA). http://www.local.org (last accessed 1 June 2003).
50. Finn, B., and R. Hirsh. 2001. Powering the past: A look back. An on-line history of the U.S. electric industry. Washington, DC: The National Museum of American History (Smithsonian). http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/powering/ thepast.htm (last accessed 1 June 2003).
51. Fitzpatrick, T. 2001. Electricity competition in the keystone state. Public utilities Fortnightly 139 (19): 14-16.
52. Flynn, J., R. E. Kasperson, H. Kunreuther, and P. Slovic. 1997. Overcoming tunnel vision: Redirecting the U.S. high-level nuclear waste program. Environment 39 (3): 6-11, 25-30.
53. Fritsche, U. R. 1997. Comparing greenhouse-gas emissions and abatement costs of nuclear and alternative energy options from a life-cycle perspective. Darmstadt, Germany: Institute for Applied Ecology.
54. Garbesi, K., and A. Ramo. 2002. Deregulation, crisis, and the public interest: California's slippery slope. Presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Los Angeles, March 19-23, 2002.
55. German Wind Energy Institute. (GWEI) 2003. Statistics, http://www.dewi.de/statistics.html (last accessed 12 November 2003).
56. Goodwin, C. D., ed. 1981. Energy policy in perspective: Today's problems, yesterday's solutions. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
57. Goldberg, M. 2000. Federal energy subsidies: Not all technologies are created equal. Report #11 of the Renewable Energy Project, Washington, DC. http://www.repp.org (last accessed 1 June 2003).
58. Graf, W.L. 2001. Damage control: Restoring the physical integrity of America's rivers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (1): 1-27.
59. Heavner, B., M. Zugel, and D. Jacobson. 2001. Affordabk, reliable renewables: Pathway to California's sustainable energy future. Sacramento: California Public Interest Research Group. http://calpirg.org/reports/ renewablesreport.htm (last accessed 1 June 2003).
60. Heiman, M. K. 2002. Power for the people: A comparison of the U.S. and German commitments to renewable energy, In Renewable energy: Trends and prospects, ed. S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, and A. I. Panah, 403-11. Easton: Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
61. Helm, D. 2002. Energy policy: Security of supply, sustainability and competition. Energy Policy 30 (3): 173-84.
62. Herzog, A. V., T. E. Lipman, J. L. Edwards, and D. M. Kammen. 2001. Renewable energy: A viable choice. Environment 43 (10): 8-20.
63. Hirsch, J. 2001. Green-energy firm seeks an outlet. Power: generators want to expand, but California continues to favor nonrenewable sources of electricity. The Los Angeles Times, Novembers, 2001, C-1.
64. Hirst, E., and B. Kirby. 2002. Expanding transmission capacity: A proposed planning process. The Electricity Journal 15 (8): 54-59.
65. Holt, E. A., R. H. Wiser, and R. Mayer. 2001. Understanding nonresidential demand for green power. For the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC: http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/gpm/non-residential. pdf (last accessed 1 June 2003).
66. Holte, S. H. 2001. Annual energy outlook (forecast evaluation). Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
67. Klitgaard, T., and R. Reddy. 2000. Lowering energy through deregulation, Current Issues in Economics and Finance 6 (4): 1-6.
68. Langniss, O., and R. Wiser. 2003. The renewables portfolio standard in Texas: An early assessment. Energy Policy 31 (6): 527-35.
69. 2 emissions. In Trends: A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide, Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.
70. Massy, J. 2002. Europe to miss renewables target. Wind Power Monthly 18 (9): 28.
71. McGuire, P., and M. Granovetter. 1998. The making of an industry: Electricity in the United States. In The Laws of markets, ed. M. Callon, 147-73. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
72. McVeigh, J., D. Burtraw, J. Darmstadter, and K. Palmer. 1999. Winner, loser or innocent victim: Has renewable energy performed as expected? Research Report #7. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
73. Milborrow, D. 2002. Mastering market mechanisms. Wind Power Monthly 18 (2): 43-45.
74. Moller, T. 2002. Depressing signals from new government. Wind Power Monthly 18 (3): 57-58.
75. Monmonier, M., and G. A. Schnell. 2002. Renewable energy: A cartographic overview of state programs and regulatory policies. In Renewable energy: Trends and prospects, ed. S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, and A. I. Panah, 451-59. Easton: Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
76. Moore, C., and J. Ihle. 1999. Renewable energy policy outside the United States. Issue Brief # 14, October, 1999 for the Renewable Energy Policy Project, Washington, DC. http://crest.org/repp_pubs/repp_publications.html (last accessed 1 June 2003).
77. Moore, M. 2000. How California is advancing green power in the new millennium. The Electricity Journal 13 (7): 72-77.
78. National Energy Policy Development Group. 2001. National energy policy. Report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy (last accessed 1 June 2003).
79. National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2001. Distributed wind power assessment. Washington, DC: National Wind Coordinating Committee, http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/default.htm (last accessed 1 June 2003).
80. Nielsen, F. B. 2002. A formula for success in Denmark. In Wind power in view: Energy landscapes in a crowded world, ed. M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe, and R. W. Righter, 115-32. San Diego: Academic Press.
81. O'Bryant, M. 2002a. Texas leads for cheap green power. Wind Power Monthly 18 (1): 22.
82. _. 2002b. Making variable supply legitimate. Wind Power Monthly 18 (2): 40.
83. _. 2002c. Flourishing market stopped in its tracks. Wind Power Monthly 18 (3): 33-34.
84. _. 2002d. New rules remove transmission barriers, Wind Power Monthly 18 (9): 49-50.
85. _. 2002e. Rulemaking will break or make mandate. Wind Power Monthly 18 (10): 28-29.
86. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OCED). 2001. Environmentally related taxes in OCED countries: Issues and strategies. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
87. Oppel, R. A. Jr. 2002. How Enron got California to buy power it didn't need. The New York Times, May 8, 2002, C-1, 6.
88. Pasqualetti, M. J. 1983, Nuclear power impacts: A convergence/divergence schema. The Professional Geographer 35 (4): 427-36.
89. Pasqualetti, M. J., P. Gipe, and R. W. Righter, eds. 2002. Wind power in view. Energy landscapes in a crowded world. San Diego: Academic Press.
90. Pasqualetti, M. J., and K. D. Pijawka. 1996. Unsiting nuclear power plants: Decommissioning risks and their land use context. The Professional Geographer 48 (1): 57-69.
91. Paulos, B. 1998. Green power in perspective: Lessons from green marketing of consumer goods. The Electricity Journal 11 (1): 46-55.
92. Penn, D. 2001. Convergence, competition, and the role of publicly owned utilities. Presented at the International Conference on Technology, Policy, and Innovation. The Hague, Netherlands. June 27, 2001. http://www.delft2001 tudelft.nl (last accessed 1 June 2003).
93. Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, 2000. Pennsylvania electric shopping statistics January 1, 2000. Harrisburg, PA: PAOCA. http://www.oca. state.pa.us (last accessed 1 June 2003).
94. _. 2003. Pennsylvania electric shopping statistics April 1, 2003. Harrisburg, PA: PAOCA. http://www.oca.state.pa.us (last accessed 1 June 2003).
95. Pomeroy, R. 2002. EU halfway to Kyoto target, but emissions up-EEA, Reuters News Service, April 30, 2002. http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/ dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=15714 (last accessed 1 June 2003).
96. Rader, N. A., and W. P. Short III. 1998. Competitive retail markets: Tenuous grounds for renewable energy. Electricity Journal 11 (3): 72-80.
97. Sawyer, S. W. 1986. Renewable energy: Progress, prospects. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
98. Sioshansi, F., and C. Morgan. 2000. What can be learned from California's restructured market thus far? Energy Policy 28 (2): 81-85.
99. Slocum, T. 2001. Electric utility deregulation and the myths of the energy crisis. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 21 (6): 473-81.
100. Smeloff, E., and P. Asmus. 1997. Reinventing electric utilities: Competition, citizen action, and clean power. Washington, DC: Island Press.
101. Solomon, B. D., and M. K. Heiman. 2001. The California electric power crisis: Lessons for other states. The Professional Geographer 53 (4): 463-68.
102. Southeast Power Report. 2001. San Antonio muni buys more renewable power, encourages green production. Southeast Power Report. News service. December 10, 2001, 4.
103. Sterngold, J. 2002. California tries to have energy deals renegotiated. The New York Times, February 25, 2002, A-17.
104. Swezey, B., and L. Bird. 2000. Green power marketing in the United States: A status report. 5th ed. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
105. Taylor, J., and P. VanDoren. 2002. Evaluating the case for renewable energy: Is government support warranted? Policy Analysis #422. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute.
106. Texas Public Utility Commission. 2001. Report to the 77th Texas legislature: Scope of competition in electric markets in Texas. Austin: Public Utility Commission of Texas.
107. Thornberg, C. 2002. Of megawatts and men: Understanding the causes of the California power crisis. In California policy options 2002, ed. D. J. Mitchell, 177-95. Los Angeles: University of California, School of Public Policy and Social Research, and UCLA Anderson Forecast.
108. U.S. Department of State, 2002. U.S. climate action report 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
109. Vogel, N. 2000. How state's consumers lost with electricity deregulation, The Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2002, A-1.
110. Von Hippel, F. N. 2001. Plutonium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Science 293:2397-98.
111. Wasserman, H. 1999. The last energy war: The battle over utility deregulation. New York: Seven Story Press.
112. Wilbanks, T. J. 1994. Energy efficiency improvements: Making a no regrets option work. Environment 36 (9): 16-20, 36-44.
113. Wind Power Monthly. 2001a. Illuminating the bar room. Wind Power Monthly 17 (7): 6.
114. _. 2001b. Green and clean is not enough on its own. Wind Power Monthly 17 (9): 54.
115. Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, E. Holt, and B. Swezey. 2001. Forecasting the growth of green power markets in the United States. NREL Report No. TP-620-30101. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
116. Yardley, J. 2002. Texas says it's no California as it deregulates electricity. The New York Times, January 3, 2002, A-16.
117. Coyle, Eugene. Independent Energy Consultant. In Vallejo, CA, on 21 March 2002.
118. Kapner, Mark. Director of Renewable Energy for Austin Electric. In Austin, TX, on 9 July 2001.