With electric generation responsible for 41 percent of U.S anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from energy use, development of clean energy sources is essential if the United States is to reduce release of greenhouse gases and slow global warming. Many proponents of sustainable energy anticipate that electric generation from renewable sources would thrive in a deregulated market, driven by consumer demand for ''green'' energy and the end of incentives to build large central power plants under the cost-plus profits guaranteed by state utility commissions. This paper examines the flaws in this expectation. After reviewing the highly cyclical nature of U.S. energy policy making in recent decades, the study links the ineffectiveness of policy with the institutional setting. Under electric utility market restructuring, renewable energy generation (wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydro) must overcome barriers such as price distortions, lack of storage capability, discriminatory transmission system access, and the end of linked utility rate hikes guaranteed to cover the additional expense of renewable generation. In the absence of strong federal leadership, the state commitment to renewable energy has been uneven under utility restructuring. Moreover, nuclear power-the other leading alternative to fossil fuel use-is beset by serious problems. Only renewable energy options offer long-term hope for sustainability. Along these lines, green marketing, renewable portfolio standards, system benefit charges, carbon taxes, public power, ''Community Choice,'' and production credits-all based on recent U.S. and European experience-are critically examined and recommendations made for changing course. At present, during this highly fluid period of utility restructuring, and absent more forceful regulation and demand management, it is dubious whether U.S. electricity market reform can encourage sufficient conversion to renewable energy to stem a rising tide of greenhouse gas emissions. Key Words: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, electric utility, energy policy, renewable energy, wind power.

Many of our readers will already be familiar with evidence suggesting that residents of poor communities and communities of color in the United States bear a "disproportionate" burden of toxic contamination, both through the generation and release of hazardous chemicals in their neighborhoods and the location of waste management facilities. This is an outcome that the landmark 1987 United Church of Christ (UCC) report on toxic waste and race claimed was not the result of mere coincidence (United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, 1987). Indeed, empirical evidence of disproportionate economic impact from environmental mismanagement, as well as through the regulatory response to air pollution, had already been noted a decade earlier by geographers and economists, albeit without the suggestion of discriminatory intent (e.g., Harrison, 1975;Berry, et al., 1977).In this special issue, our contributors consider both the evidence supporting the conclusion that race is the central determining factor with toxic exposure and, of greater consequence, they explore the political implications of such for community organizing and empowerment. Addressing the former agenda, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accounting Office examines the racial composition and income level of people living near municipal solid waste landfills and reviews research on the demographics of hazardous waste facility location. It concludes that people of color and low-income people are not overrepresented at nonhazardous municipal landfills and, furthermore, that ten major studies on hazardous waste facility location collectively yield an inconclusive . range of results depending upon the type of facility studied, the research

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract