Regulating Renewable Energy: Balancing Ethics and Economics

THE ETHICS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY REGULATIONS 1
THE ETHICS OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY REGULATIONS
An Honors Business Thesis
BY
JEAN-DORIS MUHUZA
Dr. Shyam Sharma
WRT 301: Writing in the Discipline
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY

Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Theoretical discussion................................................................................................... 7
Justice in the Free Market ........................................................................................................... 8
The Political War ........................................................................................................................ 9
Economic and Environmental Rights........................................................................................ 11
Chapter 3: Ethics of regulating energy - consumption behaviors in three different cases ........... 15
Case One - The Government..................................................................................................... 15
Case two - Peabody Energy ...................................................................................................... 19
Case three - Tenaska Energy..................................................................................................... 20
Media and the public................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 4: Solving the problem.................................................................................................... 24
From Global to Local................................................................................................................ 25
Economic Justice....................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 5: Conclusion................................................................................................................... 30
References..................................................................................................................................... 32

Abstract
Signs of global warming have become so evident that climate change is no longer a myth, and a
push towards renewable energy has created an imbalance in the private and public sectors of
“green” energy business. This thesis will explore whether government intervention of the energy
industry is justifiable. By discussing the perspectives of both sectors, alongside a consideration
of how the media has not served the public in informing or representing their voices, this thesis
examines the government’s reasoning in interfering in the free market, using case studies to
show the cost and benefits of government intervention. The thesis begins with an introduction of
the issue and stakeholders, followed by a theoretical discussion of bad business practices and
unfairness of government interference, along with an application of theory in three current cases.
It concludes by arguing that while the government has the responsibility towards the public to
protect the environment and to envision and create a sustainable energy regime, it must also
avoid unfair favoritism to one type of business against others. In addition to making this
argument, solutions will be made in an attempt to avoid this and maintain a fair economy.

Chapter 1: Introduction
In a free-market economy like ours, business transactions tend to be operated without
always considering conditions and perspective of ethics. As a form of applied or professional
ethics, however, business ethics needs to be considered wherever issues of justice, fairness, and
responsibility come up. Generally, in the context of renewable energy, the current public
discourse focuses greatly on a shift towards a future that no longer relies on nonrenewable
sources such as coal, a shift that is related to the survival of our species. A carbon free
environment is most conducive to the survival of mankind. Though educating the uninformed
public on the pros and cons of having renewable alternatives, solutions are drawn within the
discourse.
This thesis will explore whether government intervention of the energy industry is
justifiable in the private sector firms. From looking at the discourse from both the public and
private sector, this discourse is open to full interpretation without bias. The issue of global
warming has been present in the 21st century, but it has been one sided. Portrayal of the global
warming crisis ignores private sector firms and paints them in a negative light. With a social
awareness of climate change and depletion of fossil fuel, how can the United States transition
society’s purchase behavior from gas and oil to renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro
thermal, and wind energy ethically; in particular, how can it do so without excessively hurting its
businesses? In order to address the dilemma that society and the government are facing today,
this thesis will explore a number of ethical issues in the contexts and perspectives of a political
discourse, financial dynamics, popular opinion, and in the role of media. Exploring ethical issues
from different perspectives, as I will argue and demonstrate in later chapters, can only help us
formulate feasible solutions in the long run, such as, what are possible solutions to this global
crisis?

The best way to answer this question is by gaining a full grasp of whether businesses
should be ethically responsible or whether we should have a laissez-faire system. A laissez-faire
system is based on laissez-faire capitalism, which is “an economic doctrine that opposes
governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a
free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic law” (Farlex, 2015; p. 630). The
conceptual definition is an economy in which the government does not constrict private
corporations from performing all acts to conduct business, while still holding a basic set of rules
to ensure a free market. In essence the government is required to regulate the market in order to
maintain order. Without it, much of the business conducted will involve theft, deceit, and upright
corruption. That is not to say that theft, deceit, and corruption is not already present in the
economy, but a lack of order would make these things more obvious within the business market.
Ultimately, an economy without order is not an economy, but a Darwinist environment without
trust both within and outside the companies conducting business.
The basis of this thesis helps provide the perspectives in the discourse of renewable
energy to best resolve the issue on whether the purchasing behavior of renewable energy can be
regulated, and if so, how that can be done. Chapter two will flesh out this theoretical discussion
on the free market and how one perspective believes it should be restructured to maintain public
safety both in a global and local environment. From a business-oriented view of the market, it is
prosperous to have a free market because it will prevent the government from incentivizing green
companies, and regulating the operations of nonrenewable companies. As a rebuttal, it will be
advantageous to evaluate how the free market in a political aspect does more harm than good.
The harm that the free market commits will be seen in an evaluation of a nonrenewable
company, Talisman Oil, and how its involvement in the foreign sector affects the global market.

In addition to introducing the discourse from two perspectives, chapter two will look at foreign
policies establishing guidelines to this growing green market. It is through these guidelines that
the discourse will be fully fleshed out in explaining if and how there is an unfair advantage to
being a renewable company in this newly established economy.
The discourse will continue in chapter three with a specific look into two companies and
comparing them through the lenses of the government and media. The two companies that will
be compared are Tenaska Energy and Peabody Energy. Tenaska will be used to provide an
example of a newly developed green company that the government incentivizes for its provisions
in social welfare. The government will use Tenaska as a model to push for more green
companies. In contrast, Peabody will be an example of a long standing company, much like
Talisman, that is dying out in the energy market because of these incentives. The difference
between Talisman and Peabody will be noted in discovering whether there is ethical misconduct
practices within Peabody. Lastly, the media will provide a voice for the public to address its
concerns in the discourse of renewable energy. Ultimately, this analysis provides answers as to
whether social welfare is as important, if not more so, than economic justice.
After looking at the theoretical discussion from multiple perspectives, chapter four will
provide solutions as to what can be done to solve the issue of whether there is a need for
purchase behavior regulations in renewable energy. Regulations discussed in previous chapters
will be used to compare the fair and unfair advantageous to each policy. This chapter will
continue to from a more legal perspective in predicting the outcome of the free market and how
it will affect society in the survival of the human species.

Chapter 2: Theoretical discussion
The issue of ethical buying behavior versus a laissez-faire system can be understood
through a theoretical discussion of business ethics from the perspectives of politics,
sustainability, and profit. All three sides are necessary in this discussion to make an unbiased
opinion on how this issue can be solved, and whether there is a side to choose. This discussion
has been the recent topic of debate because of instances such as the case of a Canadian company,
Talisman Oil, which based its operations in Sudan. The company attested to making a
contribution to social welfare when in actuality it contributed to social harm. A look into the
Canadian company through Idahosa’s (2002) Business Ethics and Development in Conflict
(Zones) provides insight as to why companies choose to free themselves of the burden of social
welfare and why the government insists that they don’t. As the largest oil distributor, it is
sensible to justify operations in an oil rich country such as Sudan when profitability is at stake.
But is it justifiable to put profits ahead of morality? Many companies say it is while the
government thinks otherwise.
The argument can be made that Talisman Oil was putting profits as a main priority.
Money gained by shareholders who are not in the Sudan environment is not justifiable when
increased violence is the direct result of oil production. Because shareholders do not witness the
day to day effects of oil production, they are left without worry or woe to the safety of the oil
workers and community. Since the rise of oil worldwide in the summer of 2000, shareholders
received enormous cash flow and earnings (Idahosa, 2002; p. 234). From what I learned on
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the observational behavior class I am taking this semester, my
observation is that shareholders and companies are categorized in the esteem level of needs while
the people of Sudan are in the safety level. Shareholders and companies are in the esteem level
because money in the business industry signifies success; with success comes confidence and the

rise of self-esteem. However, the environment in which businesses operate is to profit, causing
inhabitants of that environment to fear for their safety.
Justice in the Free Market
In a free market economy businesses can do as they please, which they have been for the
majority of the time capitalism was introduced in colonial America. In Kierulff (2009) and
Learned’s (2009) Limiting Laissez Faire Profits: The Financial Implications, Adam Smith, the
father of capitalism, foreshadowed a future where society would struggle to balance “competing
interest of social welfare and economic justice” (Kierulff, 2009; p. 426). Social welfare includes
multiple things such as, but not limited to, social security, retirement, and free health care. For
the purpose of this study, we shall focus on one aspect of social welfare that requires businesses
to operate while maintaining a safe and sustainable living environment in and around areas of
operations. This is crucial because of the accelerated decay of the earth caused by hazardous
chemicals and deforestation from major factories, power plants, and businesses associated with
them.
The government often holds businesses responsible because of deceitful ploys they use to
attract investors within the social marketing concept. Three principles make up this concept:
society, companies, and consumers. The idea that marketing decisions are made by considering
consumers’ satisfaction, societal responsibilities, and company profit goals is too good to be true.
In Ethical issues as a potential factor of brand’s (un)success, Melovic, Nesic, Njegovan, and
Jocovic (2014) conclude that “companies...often state claims for their brands that are obviously
misleading” (Melovic, 2014; p. 36). The case often holds true in business operations, where
companies focus mainly on two of the three sides to the social marketing concept: the company
and consumers. Justly, neglecting society is why the government feels responsible in protecting
the people through a regulated economy.

This study will open the discussion between the Tenaska Energy Corporation, a fairly
new energy company on the rise, and the Peabody Energy Corporation, the largest private-sector
coal company in the world, to see how the government's involvement, through the Department of
Energy, regulates and incentivizes the behavior of one company over another. Ultimately,
recommendations will be drawn as to how the government can interfere less in the energy
industry or how social welfare can be better incorporated into businesses.
The Political War
Laissez-faire capitalism was built on the principle that the government shall not intrude
on any means of business operations. Business and politics are meant to be separate under this
economy. However, we often find business and politics intertwined in society. For example,
lobbyists exist for the purpose of funding political campaigns to get bills passed that are
favorable to the business of that company. In the case of Talisman Oil, the company attempts to
distance itself from social responsibility by force of government regulations as so explained by
Idahosa (2002).
This (contestable) claim reflects the third tactic that Talisman employs, an appeal to
a moral division of labor between politics and business that rests upon a “realist”
approach to international relations. Talisman has stated that they do not get involved
in politics, that they are “a business and [do] not have the role of a sovereign
government” (TI, 1999; OGD, 1999; OGJ, 2000). What they are arguing, in effect,
is not only that it is not their role to deal with political conflict but, that they have a
right to do business as long as existing governments do not prohibit them. (Idahosa,
2002; p.235)
Idahosa (2002) makes an interesting analysis as to why in some cases companies are exonerated
of the responsibility of social welfare. As the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

in Jimmy Carter's 1977 administration, Thomas Bertram, said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In
the context of business, this means that if you don’t have to restrict companies from dealing with
political conflict, don’t. Talisman is not considered a sovereign government. Therefore, they are
not responsible for political wrongdoings by third party members caused as a result of their
actions.
Talisman Oil is a prime example for the discourse of business ethics in the private
industry because of its practice in bad business ethics. Business ethics, as explained on
wiseGEEK, consists of a range of corporate behaviors that violate the law, damage the
confidence of customers, or both. Such behaviors include dishonesty, negligence in
manufacturing, customer service failings, and financial scandals.
Talisman Oil is dishonest in their involvement with non-governmental organizations
(NGOs). By claiming that the company’s cooperation with NGOs improves living conditions of
local communities, Talisman Oil was seen as an ethical company. However, their image soon
changed when six NGOs affirmed that “there is no relationship between these NGOs and any of
the companies involved in the oil industry in Sudan” (Idahosa, 2002; p. 237). With a tarnished
image, shareholders stopped investing in the company, the Federal Energy Regulations
Commission (FERC) fined them for fraud, and the company entered a quick decline in its life
cycle. Companies often practice bad ethics because some dishonest practices are not punishable
by law, which attracts its continuation and company sales increase as a result.
Dishonesty and negligence in manufacturing are sometimes indistinguishable because a
company can market and produce products that put customers in danger and not disclose that
information. In this case, omission is equivalent to lying because the same outcome occurs from
either action. An example of customer service failings can be found in the failure to replace or

refund damaged products. Energy companies are not caught doing this quite often because their
business is based on customer satisfaction of how effective their products are or how low costs
are without losing profit. Low customer satisfaction results in low sales. In cases where
companies make excessive amounts of sales, it is not uncommon to find scandals of tax evasion
or falsification of financial statements.
Economic and Environmental Rights
Canada continues to be a leading provider of energy in the world. To better understand
the politics of the country, we need to look at its legislation. It is in legislation that solutions can
be found as well as improvement. Ontario’s 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act
(GEGEA) was meant as a means to “promote the large-scale deployment of low-impact
renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, photovoltaic (PV), small scale hydro-
electricity and biogas-based generation” (Winfield, 2014; p. 423). With GEGEA enacted, there is
a means of regulating the transition from nonrenewable energy to energy from renewable
resources. Despite this great benefit, it is argued that the act won’t create jobs or improve
economic growth and only improve production costs while diminishing competitiveness.
In looking into GEGEA, it is necessary to compare both public policy and public
discourse analysis approaches in determining the need for a push towards renewable energy.
There are three perspectives on the economic effects of renewable energy as Winfield (2014)
discusses in Energy, economic and environmental discourses and their policy impact: The case
of Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act: market fundamentalists, economic
rationalists, and ecological modernists. Among these three perspectives, the most judgmental
views come from market fundamentalists because of their opposition of all governmental
imposition in the market. This is especially true for renewable energy. In their view, renewable
energy is “objectionable.” In comparison, economic rationalists are interested in the end result:

an efficiently functioning market. Despite their personal views, ideas are subject to change based
upon market mechanisms used to reach such ends. They disapprove of renewable energy because
it is seen as an ineffective way to get environmental and economic policies changed.
Sustainability is a secondary concern amongst economic rationalists. Ecological
modernists are the global crusaders of the three groups. They believe that the economy must be
restructured to meet more environmentally friendly and sustainable goals which develop “green”
skills. These crusaders strive for legislation that push towards a sustainable earth, legislation like
GEGEA.
The GEGEA was adopted in May 2009. The centerpiece of the initiative was a Feed-
In Tariff (FIT) program established under the legislation, which provided stable
prices under long-term contracts for energy generated from renewable sources –
specifically solar, wind, biomass, biogas and waterpower. The Ontario Power
Authority (OPA), the province's electricity system planning agency, was given
responsibility for implementing the FIT program, and entering into contracts with
eligible applicants. The program was divided into two categories, FIT and MicroFIT,
with the FIT program intended for projects over 10 kW and the MicroFIT program
for projects less than 10 kW. (Winfield, 2014; p. 425)
As a result of the GEGEA, the renewable energy industry created an estimated 2,000 direct
manufacturing jobs. With positive outcomes in renewable energy, the government invested $47.1
billion into green energy. An investment of this magnitude is enough incentive for any company
to go green. With an increase in companies going green, non-green companies won’t be able to
compete in an increasingly renewable resource demanding market. In looking at the way the

economy should be operated, a market fundamentalist believes that having renewable resources
defeats the purpose of a functioning economy.
Companies that serve the “green” market are inefficient because there are more risks than
rewards to their operations. One of these risks is that renewable companies generate little to no
financial return because of the costs of manufacturing technology that can sustain the amount of
energy these companies attempt to extract, mining sources that are suitable in providing such
energy, and maintaining resources in forests for biomass needs. The second risk is that renewable
business affects stakeholders as well as shareholders. Due to the excessive cost of maintenance,
companies will need to compensate for their losses by increasing prices to their customers.
Ultimately, this will increase electricity prices by 13%. These multiple outcomes can be
explained in a table derived from Energy, economic and environmental discourses and their
policy impact: The case of Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Energy Policy.

(Winfield, 2014; p.427)

Chapter 3: Ethics of regulating energy - consumption behaviors in three different cases
This chapter will further explore the complex ethical issues in the arguments that
different parties make in the debate about renewable energy regulations by implementing the
ethical framework developed in the previous chapters to three different cases. The discussion in
chapter two evaluated public opinion about government intervention in favor of renewable
energy in the global economy and how that support affects certain businesses in the private
sector. Opposing arguments showed that the same incentives pushing for a renewable industry is
unfair and unjust to long-standing companies such as Talisman Oil that must, from a purely
business perspective, be given the same rights. This chapter illustrates these ethical tensions by
discussing three specific cases where government regulation affects different kinds of businesses.
In doing so, the chapter also sheds light on how the media plays a role in shaping public
perception on the subject. The first case is of the Department of Energy and the argument from
the government’s perspective, focusing on the idea of influencing the future of the energy
economy. The second case is of Peabody Energy, showing the perspectives of traditional
nonrenewable companies. And the last case is of Tenaska Energy, representing the perspectives
of many of the newly developed energy companies. The discussion among these three
organizations will put this debate in the context of the big picture: what can we do? Showing the
advantages and disadvantages of switching to renewable resources by considering the issue of
justice and fairness for different parties involved helps society make the most ethical as well as
effective decisions.
Case One - The Government
The logic behind government incentives is based on the idea of social justice and moving
society forward. In doing so, the government shows preferential treatment towards certain
companies in order to increase public opinion, control the economy, and shift towards a carbon

free world. But just because the government thinks that this is a good direction to go in does not
mean that there is no harm in getting there. The harm is present in the economic state of
unfavored companies.
With the risk of depleting resources, it is crucial for there to be incentives that establish
means of preserving what little resources are available. However, businesses need free autonomy
to function. Without it, the public will fear the government for its overpowered control on all
business operations. In trying to avoid such opinion from the public, the government steers
organizations into doing the right thing by establishing incentives. In Going “Green”: State Tax
Incentives and Alternative Energy-An Update, the government does so through state tax
incentives intended to increase the use of alternative means of energy. Among these incentives
corporate, personal, property, and sales tax incentives are used to influence business operations.
Corporations that “purchase or install eligible renewable energy or energy-efficient equipment”
qualify for tax deductions, tax credits, and tax exemptions. Personal tax incentives simply reduce
the cost of buying and installing renewable energy and energy efficient systems/equipment.
Likewise, property tax incentives do not apply to people who purchased these systems but favor
real estate instead. All of these purchases are applicable to sales tax exemptions as well
(Garrison, 2013; p.28). Reason for these incentives, aside from improving life on earth, is largely
due to increased prices in gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil caused by the recession of 2000.
Ultimately, states need to revise budgets in an effort to increase tax revenue. By increasing tax
revenue, companies are taxed heavily for not abiding by new business regulations. Therefore,
this unjustly affects energy companies more than taxpayers by diminishing their chance of
survival.

The government’s vision of a carbon free economy is commendable, but it is also
clouded with a lack of understanding of the tradeoffs towards reaching that vision. With the
government incentivizing renewable energy, it draws questions as to why they would waste
money on green companies when the gap in size of new and old companies continues to
increase. In Utilising renewable resources economically: new challenges and chances for
process development, these tradeoffs are explained.
● Plant operating costs as well as specific investment costs tend to
decrease with plant size (creating the ‘‘economy of scale’’). In terms of
transportation, however, larger plants mean larger raw material trading
area and larger specific raw material transport costs. So, there is a tradeoff
between the lower costs for investment and operation in the plant against
the increase in specific transportation costs for raw materials.
● Another trade-off involves the decision between storage and
campaign mode of operation. As raw materials from agricultures are
produced discontinuously this leads to campaign modes of operation in
which the whole harvest is processed over a relatively short period of time
and the plant is not operated for the remaining time of the year. The trade-
off is now between costs for storage of raw material vs. the greater
investment costs added to the costs for downtime of the plant in the case
of campaign mode operation.
- (Narodoslawsky, 2008; p.168)
Both tradeoffs restate the significance of a market driven economy mentioned by the economic
rationalist of chapter two. The first tradeoff results in an unequal comparison of larger and

smaller companies; larger companies being the new market of green energy and smaller
companies being traditional energy companies. However, they cannot be treated similarly
because it is unfair for smaller companies to compete in an economy where their supply can not
meet society’s demand. Similar unfairness is brought in the second tradeoff when size of storage
is not taken into consideration. The government’s vision of long term advantages hurts other
companies in their mission of business success. Although the argument is made that green
energy advocates consider the long-term effects, it is proven that they ignore factors that affect
the outcome of unfavored companies.
The underlying argument that the government makes for looking beyond cost-benefit
analysis in the short term is that shifting to renewable energy does tremendous justice to
businesses, society, and other stakeholders in the long run. The government sees itself as
responsible for intervening on behalf of society’s long term interest. Based on the logic behind
environmental justice, the government actually sees the short-term “injury” done to some
businesses as necessary and justified for more than one reason. For instance, fossil fuel industries
benefited from similar protection, promotion, and investment by the government while they were
evolving for decades. Many of them are still benefiting from government subsidies. But at one
point, the government as a guardian of society must make tough choices, even though that may
not make everyone happy. The appearance of injustice from some companies’ perspective is
insignificant from a relative perspective of society as a whole in spite of the smaller ethical
dilemma, resulting in the government shifting towards renewable energy as a social policy.
The policy to consider society as a whole presents a need for companies to find
technology that helps their business and society. Such resources are present in the use of biomass
technology to naturally synthesis energy from the earth. Forestry, the science or practice of

planting, managing, and caring for a forest, is one way in which renewable companies provide
natural synthesis. In terms of longevity, forestry might be the most resourceful form of
renewable energy because of energy provisions such as storability, and promising capability of
continuous seasons and climate independent provisions (Narodoslawsky, 2008; p. 167). The
benefits that biomass technology offers are not limited to forestry but stretch out to many energy
technologies that utilize low grade raw materials. However, direct transition into renewable
resources will cause excessive demand that the energy industry might not be able to meet. Global
economists are aware of this dangerous outcome, which perhaps explains the delay over the last
decades to move into a carbon free environment. This creates a slippery slope where despite the
advantages of being socially responsible, the dangers of such an outcome make it nearly
unattainable. With an unattainable goal, it makes the government’s need to regulate the energy
market unreasonable.
Case two - Peabody Energy
So, what can we do? Peabody Energy is able to tackle government intrusion in its affairs
in a manner that has kept their business afloat in this unjust economy. Although oil and natural
gas replaced coal as a leading provider of energy in the early 20th century, Peabody Energy’s use
of large coal fields evened the unbalanced scale in energy competition. Evaluating Peabody
Energy and its business practices determines whether the company practices unethical business
to keep the competitive scale balanced. If Peabody Energy practices unethical business, solutions
to fix this corrupted system can be determined by evaluating what Peabody does wrong. If
Peabody Energy practices good business ethics, this will determine that it is possible to regulate
the purchase behavior of energy without sacrificing economic justice.
With a mission that is centered on improving quality of life, it is surprising to find that
Peabody runs a nonrenewable company that believes in the green initiative without sacrificing

business goals. Peabody Energy’s mission statement is “To create a superior value for
shareholders as the leading global supplier of coal, which enables economic prosperity and a
better quality of life” (Peabody, 2014; p. 2). Their mission of economic prosperity is
accomplished by selling a very lucrative product. Not only does the company prosper
economically, but the government also profits off of taxes from the company’s operations.
Government prosperity is evident in Peabody’s lowered operational costs. Ultimately, Peabody
Energy increased U.S. productivity by seven percent, Australian productivity by 20%, and
created more than $22 billion in economic benefits globally.
Not only does Peabody Energy succeed as a business, but the advantages it provides
continue through its practice of social welfare. The main reason for pushing a green initiative is
to lower carbon emission. Peabody Energy contributes to this initiative by reducing its
greenhouse gas emissions in global operations for five consecutive years, which is not surprising
since 2010 marked the largest push in the green initiative. Remarkably, 500,000 tons of CO2
emissions were reduced in Australia in the past year because of Peabody’s mission for better
quality of life. In continuing their mission for better quality of life, Peabody Energy restored over
4,000 acres of mined land into natural land that can be used for agriculture, wildlife preservation,
and tree planting (Peabody, 2014; p. 2). This accomplishment shows how the company goes
above and beyond to replenish the grounds in which they work, while other companies would
leave land in bad condition as a result of their operations.
Case three - Tenaska Energy
Within the discourse between the public sector and the private sector on the issue of the
green initiative, Tenaska Energy, formed in 1987, is an example of a favored private sector firm
because of incentives gained from the government. Incentives range from tax exemptions,
funding, and publicity. Tenaska Energy, like many green energy companies, gains these

incentives because of their unique product. Tenaska Energy focuses primarily on renewable
resources such as non-utility power plants, natural gas, electric power, biofuels, agricultural
commodities, and liquefied natural gas. It is in focusing on these green energy resources that
makes Tenaska Energy as appealing in an economy that demands such a product.
As a leading energy provider in North America, what makes Tenaska Energy so
successful? According to the company’s mission statement, in order “to meet the growing
demand for efficient energy production amid evolving market conditions, a company must be
willing to transform itself, creating value for customers, partners and investors” (Tenaska, 2013;
p. 2). In this economy, flexibility is key for survival of a business. That includes flexibility in
restructuring a business’s product, employees, or operation practices to appeal to the needs of the
community and investors. This is often difficult because customer and investor values usually
conflict with one another. Tenaska is flexible because of its willingness to “transform” itself and
create new opportunities. Tenaska’s transformative nature has shown continuous results in its
success as a company. Throughout the company’s history, one can see markers that distinguish it
from other companies. Such markers include its 97.4% peak-hour availability for customers,
earning the company high marks for reliability; the company qualifying for 28 National Safety
Council Awards and earning two Best Practices Awards in 2013; and lowering operating costs
by 30% after taking operations over on all its properties (Tenaska, 2013; p. 2).
Media and the public
Sadly enough, public education on the energy crisis comes mainly from news sources.
This is why it is important to distinguish which sources are untrustworthy and why. Analyzing
the media portrayal of this discourse provides insight as to what the public actually thinks of the
green initiative from a non-governmental perspective. In 2003, Time magazine declared that the
United States was running out of energy. Ten years later, it declared the U.S. an “energy

superpower” (Tenaska, 2013; p. 24). Among these superpowers is the self-proclaimed “global
leader in clean energy solutions,” Peabody Energy. This constant change in the status of energy
in the United States leaves the public confused as to whether there is a crisis.
Revkin (2012) presents the problem with coal companies, one form of nonrenewable
companies, in the clean energy business in his New York Times article A Coal Sales Ticker next
to a ‘Clean Energy’ Claim. After sending a link and video on Peabody Energy’s homepage to
Middlebury and Yale authors who wrote Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United
States Economy, the conclusion was made that “coal-fired power plants have air pollution
damages larger than their value added.” A spokesman from the Natural Resources Defense
Council went on to add:
Peabody consistently ranks as one of the worst polluters on the planet. If it
put only a fraction of the time and money it spends on fighting
environmental safeguards into actually pursuing clean energy solutions,
we’d all be better off
- Keefe (2012)
Keefe’s expertise in the energy industry along with Revkin’s (2012) journalistic style, sheds light
to the falsehood within nonrenewable firms. Bad business ethics like this is one of the reasons as
to the lack in public trust for these type of firms.
The media does a good job in exposing bad business practices in the energy industry, but
there are cases when even the media can be corrupted by these same business. Such is the case in
Foster’s (2001) editorial Environmental Spinmeisters. It was reported that before the G8 summit
of 2001, the U.S. and Canada tried to repel a G8 task force from enforcing renewable energy in
the developing world. The G8 summit is an annual meeting between leaders from eight of the

most powerful countries in the world, where they try to tackle global problems by discussing big
issues and planning what action to take.
However, media content is often manipulated by those in power because of the amount of
influence in the government. Influence comes with money and the amount of money generated in
nonrenewable energy is enough to corrupt anyone’s morality, even the president of the United
States. George W. Bush was inclined to hang onto G8 systems of subsidies for conventional
fuels to support his Texas allies. The major reason for the US and Canada repelling potential for
renewable energy was to even the playing field.
Overall, we found with few exceptions, federal government support today
for energy investments, including support through the tax system, does
not particularly favor the non-renewable sector over the renewable sector
(Foster, 2001).
The manipulation of media content and news represents the lack of speech that the public
has in the discourse of renewable energy. Ultimately, if the government does not
manipulate the news with threats of prison sentences or political influence, big businesses
will often influence the media with bribes or ownership of news companies. This is to say
that there is no real voice for the people when it comes to voicing concerns. Therefore, the
discourse on the purchase behavior of renewable resources will forever remain between the
government and the private business sector.

Chapter 4: Solving the problem
In the previous chapters we introduced the discourse of renewable energy and whether
societal purchasing behavior is pushing for more green companies. We also theorized the
discussion by using companies in the energy market to give perspectives from two sides of this
argument. As we saw, the public sector, being solely the government, is in favor of renewable
energy and social welfare while pushing its personal vision onto the private sector to unbalance
the competitive economy. The other side, being private sector businesses focusing on
nonrenewable energy, is in favor of a free market because government policies on energy
provisions restrict their business and cause extinction of their businesses. These businesses
overcome this unjust market by trying to balance this competitive market. However, can there be
a win-win situation?
In this chapter, recommendations will be made as to how government regulations can be
applied in the energy market without significantly restricting the operations of nonrenewable
businesses while still providing social welfare, or if this is even possible. In finding these
solutions, an unforeseen loser might be necessary in order to benefit the mass instead of the few
by assessing good and bad options.
Some of the government’s options that are often seen as helpful and necessary resources
are not resourceful because stronger options are available and the logical solutions often times
have blind spots. Much of the resilience to move towards a fully renewable environment is
because of the sustainability penalty. The sustainability penalty is described in Consumer
Behavior Towards Alternative Energy Products: A Study, as the skepticism of whether products
that are sustainable can also be functionally strong. This skepticism is centered on an uneducated
premise of what the advantages and disadvantages of renewable energy are, making it difficult to
understand energy-related consumer behavior. From the analysis in this thesis, it was determined

that energy-efficient products, despite lowering carbon emission, provide less energy and
compromise the functions of vehicles that run these alternative fuels. Therefore, it is crucial to
find green substitutes that perform identically as standard solutions (Paliwal, 2012; p. 238).
From Global to Local
The government should be more cautious and thoughtful about its approaches. These
approaches are developed from the perspective of an ideological debate that brings up many
issues when the debate should be pragmatic in order to form realistic solutions. After looking at
Canadian legislation and its effect on the green initiative, questions arise as to why this is of
significance. How does it affect us in the United States? Which renewable resource matters the
most?
In understanding questions like this, the discussion is focused on a personal incentive for
favoring or disfavoring the green initiative. Legislation set in the United States, the leading
energy provider of the world, affects everyone in the world, and affects how businesses in the
United States practice good business ethics. To answer the second question, power can be
generated from multiple resources, such is the case for hydrothermal, solar, and wind energy.
Hydrothermal energy requires the construction of dams in large bodies of water. However, the
construction of dams directly affects biological, chemical and physical properties of rivers and
riparian (or "streamside") environments (Environmental Impacts of Dams). In comparison, solar
panels can be costly to the average household in both installation and maintenance. One benefit
of having solar panels is making enough energy to resell to electric companies. The only issue
with that is solar contracts that make it increasingly difficult to sell your home after installing
solar panels. Future homeowners would need to qualify on credit to take over the solar lease
payments of the previous homeowner for the next 15 to 17 years (Harney, 2015).

With two of the three sources of renewable energy having more disadvantages than
advantages, we look at wind energy and evaluate the advantages in contrast to its disadvantages.
Based on Feldpausch-Parker’s analysis of the state context for renewable energy, the three states
with the most wind gusts are Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Yet, they fail to
produce enough energy because of insufficient resources to transfer that energy into power. The
amount of wind power needed to reach the goal of lowering carbon emissions is so large that the
energy generated from wind mills barely make a dent. With this in mind, it is not surprising to
find that media coverage of wind energy is largely negative; much of the content being that it
causes more harm than good (Feldpausch-Parker, 2015; p.10).
Through the process of elimination wind energy is the least effective renewable resource.
It neither offers economic benefits, nor environmental benefits. Dams cause more environmental
harm than good despite its purpose of decreasing carbon emissions. Lastly, solar energy seems to
be the most beneficial economically and environmentally. The major disadvantage of solar
energy is decreased return in home selling, but considering the massive return on electricity, this
is well worth the cost.
Economic Justice
In order to find solutions, we need to move past the political debate and vilification of
traditional energy regimes and develop solutions based on a strong sense of economic justice for
all. This ultimately means there is a need for all players in the market to be treated fairly in an
economic sense. Much of the discourse from the previous chapters suggest that the private
industry wants to exclude the government from business operations and that the government
feels inclined to interfere in the private sector. Cause for this mentality is attributed to a decrease
in safety nets for businesses in the energy market. With the issue of renewable energy situated in
the context where companies producing nonrenewable resources are evil, those companies are

seen in a negative light. While there might be truth in that kind of discourse, a counter argument
can be made by the same businesses that the government is unfairly dumping resources and
benefits to small businesses, thus resulting in an uncompetitive market because of an undue
advantage.
Why would businesses want a free market? The implication behind a free market is that
there are no regulations on what they can or cannot do to other businesses, the economy,
environment, or the people. Basically, there are no responsibilities because companies are not
liable and therefore do not need to pay taxes. Naturally, investors choose companies with the
least amount of risk. For this reason a free market would result in maximum profit, thus
attracting shareholders.
With limitations on companies that provide commonly used goods or services,
profitability is restricted and the same companies are put at a disadvantage in a competitive
industry. These limitations are justified because of few or expensive substitutes. Having a debt
financed economy with company tax deductibles would solve the issue facing both the
government and the energy market. Yet, an argument can be made that businesses do not require
special treatment if they were properly incentivized for corporate social responsibility (Kierulff,
2009; p. 434).
We looked at how both the political sector and the business sector attempt to cut each
other out of the energy market, but there is a third alternative in which the private sector can help
the government maintain a profitable economy and sustainable environment. Polzin (2015)
discusses this in Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study
across OECD countries, by making the case that renewable energy is not most profitable to
investors because of the amount of time it takes to get paid back from the investment made. If

this is not attractive to investors, this will surely not attract renewable companies to continue
their operations. Companies like Tenaska would die out because of lack of funding. With little
investors in the renewable sector, nonrenewable companies are at an advantage because they are
more attractive to investors.
However, companies like Tenaska have not died out because of their survival nature that
allows them to transform themselves. By leveraging its diverse resources, Tenaska remains an
innovative leader by creating new opportunities. To solve the issue on purchase behavior
regulations in renewable energy, these opportunities should transform their employees to include
laid off workers from closed nonrenewable companies. These workers would be an asset because
of the experience they can provide in efficiently running a power plant, mining, and constructing
new energy containment units. Ultimately, restructuring a company this way would increase
productivity in private sector firms through increased labor and keep the public happy because of
decreased unemployment.
In a competitive economy, it is necessary to even the playing field. Government
incentives provide renewable companies with the resources to save on expenses despite the lack
of investors. However, nonrenewable companies have no incentives but have an increased
amount of investors. It would be wise for the government to provide certain incentives towards
nonrenewable companies in order for executives to negotiate terms with renewable companies.
The terms of the negotiations could include clauses allowing renewable companies to
manufacture their plants using funding from nonrenewable companies, as long as the
government incentivizes renewable companies for their involvement in the green initiative. With
provisions such as these, the private sector benefits by having a truly fair economy and the public
sector benefits by advancing the use of renewable energy and lowering carbon emissions.

Chapter 5: Conclusion
From looking into the public discourse on the ethics of purchase behavior regulation in
renewable energy and theorizing it with key players in the energy sector, along with opinions
from the government and media, it has been determined that the collaboration between all sectors
and perspectives will provide a forum of progression. Transition into renewable resources will
cause excessive demand that the industry might not be able to meet. Global economists are aware
of this dangerous outcome, which perhaps explains the delay over the last decades to move into a
carbon free environment.
In addition to the delay in transition towards a more carbon free future, the move for
green alternative instruments are more of a trend than a necessity. Consumer behavior has shown
that much of the purchases for solar panels, smart cars, and energy efficiency were altruistic
decisions. An individual with these items is perceived to have a higher status because green
products often cost more. However, it was established that the same products may be “of lower
quality than their conventional counterparts. But when weighing the cost and benefits, the benefit
of improving the environment outweigh the price of green goods.
Financial support from big businesses will help governments sustain the global economy
in providing a more renewable market. The ultimate goal of the human species is to create a
future where there is as little to no carbon emission. However, this can be done without hindering
major business operations in the private sector. It was shown in this thesis that there is a win-win
situation where each sector can come out on top. Having nonrenewable companies practice good
ethics by fully disclosing all operations and information on carbon emissions will allow the
government to best allocate funding and restructuring of these firms without harming
stakeholders.

It is possible for all members in this discourse to work together in the issue of renewable
energy reform. As previously stated, green companies have low returns on investments, non-
green companies are painted in a negative light by the media, and the government is known to
manipulate the media and influence the purchasing behavior of the public. Hiring employees
from non-green companies will provide labor necessary to produce enough energy to increase
return on investment. Incentives to get non-green companies to disclose all information can help
these companies strive in a competitive industry. Unfortunately, the media will stay biased and
influenced in one way or another. However, it is crucial that the public educates itself in issues
from all perspectives and not just one.

References
Garrison (2013). Going “Green”: State Tax Incentives and Alternative Energy-An Update.
Journal of State Taxation. Feb, 31 (2): p27-54. 28p.
Harney (2015). Why leased solar panels may not be an asset when a house is up for sale. The
Washington Post. 3/20/2015
Idahosa (2002). Business Ethics and Development in Conflict (Zones): The Case of Talisman
Oil. Journal of Business Ethics. Sep, 39 (3): p227-246. 20p.
Kierulff & Learned (2009). Limited Laissez Faire Profits: The Financial Implications. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90 (3): 425-436, 12 p.
Foster (2001). Environmental Spinmeisters. LexisNexis Academic, Sept, p. C15, 856 words
Melovic; Grubic; Njegovan; Jocovic (2014). Ethical issues as a potential factor of brand’s
(UN)success. Construction of Unique Buildings & Structures. 27 (12), p32-39, 8p
Narodoslawsky; Niederl-Schmidinger; Halasz (2008). Utilizing renewable resources
economically: new challenges and chances for process development. Papers selected
from the 7th conference - Process Integration, Modelling and Optimization for Energy
Saving and Pollution Reduction- PRES 2004, Journal of Cleaner Production. 16 (2):
164-170
Paliwal (2012). Consumer behavior towards alternative energy products: a study. International
Journal of Consumer Studies. Mar, 36 (2): 238-243. 6p
Peabody Energy Co. Advanced Energy: 2014 Corporate and Social Responsibility Report.
Peabody Energy.
Polzin; Migendt; Taube; Flotow (2015). Public Policy Influence on Renewable Energy
Investments -- A Panel Data Study across OECD. Energy Policy, May, 80: 98-111.

Revkin (2012). A Coal Sales Ticker Next to a ‘Clean Energy’ Claim? Dot Earth: Nine Billion
People. One Planet. The New York Times Company, Dec 28
Tenaska Energy Co. (2013). Transforming Opportunities Annual Report. Tenaska Energy.
Winfield; Dolter (2014). Energy, economic and environmental discourses and their policy
impact: The case of Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Energy Policy,
May, 68: 423-35

Regulating Renewable Energy: Balancing Ethics and Economics

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Regulating Renewable Energy: Balancing Ethics and Economics

Similar to Regulating Renewable Energy: Balancing Ethics and Economics (20)

Regulating Renewable Energy: Balancing Ethics and Economics