Chapter 5Second, Colorado’s story demonstrates the importanceof policy moves that have immediate, tangible, ongoingbenefits for constituencies that otherwise might beskeptical of green policy. Such policy moves can fundamentallyalter the political landscape, creating new supportersfor green policy and hence broadening the potentialcoalition for green policy. In a conceptual sense,this is the heart of the “green growth” or “green industry”policy: environmentalists have always supported renewables,but the “green growth” argument focuses on showingother groups that they have real economic interests ingreen policy as well.Of course, Colorado’s green growth faces potentialobstacles down the road; the depth of future supportfrom the natural gas industry is an unknown. Also, Coloradolacks the transmission capacity to best exploit renewableenergy. Xcel Energy is trying to kick start solarprojects in southwestern Colorado, but an influential locallandowner is fighting placing transmission lines onhis land (Minard 2010). Public resistance is especiallypronounced against transmission lines crossing residentialareas or private lands (Davis and Hoffer 2010). Thepromotion of distributed generation at customers' facilitiesalso requires the grid to be able to accommodate distributed,intermittent power sources. As it is everywhere,upgrading to a renewable-friendly transmission grid willbe a major challenge for Colorado.Colorado, like most other states, also faces some politicaland structural challenges to green policy. Theseinclude uncertainty over future federal funding (Plant2011); potential exhaustion of the renewable energy“low-hanging fruit,” leading to higher future costs; a returnto partisanship after a honeymoon period of generalsupport; and some internal fracturing of the green energycommunity (Baker 2011). The critical question forColorado going forward is to what extent the strong successesof existing policy have created a stable, embeddedconstituency for green industry – from new manufacturinginstallations to rural landowners that have madewind leasing a part of their income base to houses thathave invested in solar panels – that will carry it forwardthrough funding uncertainties and the challenges of increasingscale.Works CitedASES. 2009. Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the RenewableEnergy and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S. And in Colorado.Boulder, CO: American Solar Energy Society, and WashingtonD.C.: Management Information Services Inc.Badenhausen, Kurt. 2010. "The Best States for Business and Careers."Forbes. October 13. http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/13/best-states-for-business-business-beltway-best-states_2.htmlBaker, Matt. 2011. Interview with Nina Kelsey. Telephone withnotes. May 10, 2011.Bezdek, Roger D. 2009. "Green Collar Jobs in the U.S. and Colorado,Economic Drivers for the 21st Century." Report for the AmericanSolar Energy Society, Boulder, CO.Broehl, Jesse. 2004. "Colorado Voters Pass Renewable EnergyStandard; Amendment Creates First Ever Voters-Approved RenewableEnergy Standard." RenewableEnergyAcess.Com. November 3.Burnell, James R., Christopher Carroll, and Genevieve Young. 2007."Colorado Mineral and Energy Industry Activities, 2007." Informationseries 77, Colorado Geological Survey and Colorado Departmentof Natural Resources, Denver, CO.Clean Air Clean Jobs Act, State of Colorado House Bill 10-1035 (2010).Davis, Charles and Katherine Hoffer. 2010. "Energy Developmentin the US Rockies: A Role for Counties?" The Journal of Federalism40, no. 2: 296-311.Espinoza, Annette. 2010. "5 arrested in Boulder anti-coal protest."The Denver Post. April 27. http://www.denverpost.com/comment-ed/ci_14969890?source=commented-EIA. 2010. "Colorado Electricity Profile 2008 edition." U.S. EnergyInformation Agency, Department of Energy, Washington D.C.2010. Last accessed July 28, 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/colorado.htmlFinley, Bruce. 2009. "Protestors want Colorado to stop 'clowningaround' on Clean Air." The Denver Post. November 19. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13819745Frates, Chris and Erin Cox. 2004. “Voters like tobacco tax Poll saysper-pack hike, renewable energy backed MANY REMAIN UNDE-CIDED Other amendments to split the state’s electoral and removeconstruction liability limits “look pretty weak.”” The Denver Post,October 11.Laird, Frank N. 2008. "Learning Contested Lessons: ParticipationEquity and Electric Utility Regulation." Review of Policy Research25, no. 5: 429-228.MacDonald, Lisa A. et al. 2007. "Oil and Gas Economic Impact Analysis."Report for Colorado Energy Research Institute, Denver, CO.Minard, Anne. 2010. "Colorado Seeks a Renewable Energy Peak:But can Rocky Mountain power success be repeated in other terrain?"National Geographics. May 5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-energy-colorado- renewable-power/Net Metering Act, State of Colorado House Bill 08-1160 (2008).Olinger, David. 2004. “STATEWIDE BALLOT ISSUES AMEND-MENT 37 10% by 2015: Energy initiative would force Colo. to reaprenewables.” The Denver Post, October 17.Paulson, Steven K. 2004. “List of initiatives certified for the Novemberballot.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, August 17.Plant, Tom. 2011. Interview by Nina Kelsey. Telephone with notes.May 12, 2011.Purdy, Penelope. 2004. “Amendment 37 Voters get their say on energyBallot measure sets renewables standard.” The Denver Post,October 10.Renewable Energy Financing Act, State of Colorado Senate Bill 09-051 (2009).Ritter, Bill. 2010. "Colorado's New Energy Economy." Forbes. May27. http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/26/clean-energy-wind-technology-colorado.html66
Chapter xxxKOREAA COUNTRY CASE ANALYSIS© Berkeley Roundtable on the International EconomyJune 15, 2011Prepared by Irene ChoiGreen Growth: From religion to reality 67
- Page 4:
Chapter xxxFROM RELIGIONTO REALITY:
- Page 8 and 9:
Chapter 1possibility of this outcom
- Page 10:
Chapter 1for new innovation and inv
- Page 15 and 16: Chapter 134 Ibid.35 Information bas
- Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1Hughes, Thomas. 1983. Netw
- Page 19 and 20: Chapter 21 Overview: The country ca
- Page 21 and 22: Chapter xxxEUROPEAN UNION:GREEN GRO
- Page 23 and 24: Chapter 32 See, for instance Jacobs
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 313 Germany and Poland both
- Page 27 and 28: Chapter 317 This, of course, is lim
- Page 29: Chapter 321 This problem is unique
- Page 34 and 35: Chapter 4imports significantly more
- Page 36 and 37: Chapter 4such the policies in the n
- Page 38 and 39: Chapter 4concept became a central t
- Page 40: Chapter 4Gross energy consumption b
- Page 43 and 44: objectives." In Climate Change and
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 51 In fact, the story is so
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 5tion of funds seems to rei
- Page 49 and 50: Chapter 5political structure that a
- Page 51 and 52: Chapter 51 IntroductionCalifornia
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter 5reserves further contribut
- Page 55 and 56: Chapter 5ting regulatory infrastruc
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 5world, standards set for t
- Page 59 and 60: Chapter 5take a more traditional co
- Page 61 and 62: Chapter xxxCOLORADOSTATE CASE ANALY
- Page 63 and 64: Chapter 53.1 Public advocacyPublic
- Page 65: Chapter 53.4.1 Energy industryGiven
- Page 70 and 71: Chapter 6from 2012 to 2016 (MKE, 20
- Page 72 and 73: Chapter 6Current subsidies for elec
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter xxxCHINAA COUNTRY CASE ANAL
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 72 In his investigation of
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 7which caused temporary shu
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 77 Recent explorations show
- Page 83 and 84: Chapter 7ence/earth/02copenhagen.ht
- Page 85 and 86: Chapter xxxBRAZILA COUNTRY CASE ANA
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 86 INPE counts Amazon defor
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 817 This program is controv
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 8off of its current track o
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 823 Rosa et al. (2009, 16)
- Page 95 and 96: Chapter 829 For a detailed historic
- Page 97 and 98: Chapter 8(IPEA 26 May 2010, 16).34
- Page 100: TAKE LEAD, OCTOBER 12-13 TH ,2011 C
Change language