This November, California residents will go to the ballot box to vote on a requirement for its electric utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.
Although it is supported by people like James Hansen of NASA, it is a bad policy and won't work. I am not a right-wing anti-renewable energy guy either...I work in the renewable energy industry!
This bill, basically, requires an increase to the existing renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which is 20% by 2010, and had been proposed to be 33% by 2020. At present California's RPS eligible utilities are 14% renewable, which is among the highest in the country (particularly considering that California has by far the highest population of any U.S. state). Eligible technologies include Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, Anaerobic Digestion (including cow and poultry manure), Small Hydroelectric, Tidal Energy, Wave Energy, Ocean Thermal, Biodiesel, and Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels. Large hydro projects are not eligible.
This bill keeps the same technologies eligible, yet instead requires 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. It would even include municipal utilities to meet the standard; utilities which are presently exempt from the existing RPS. The law says it will cap ratepayer costs at 3% above the market price of power, increase fines for non-compliance, and shift generation and transmission permitting duties to the California Energy Commission from the California Public Utilities Commission.
While utilities are obviously against the measure, so are some environmental groups. For one thing, it has been environmental groups that have prevented the California utilities from meeting the 20% standard by 2010. San Diego Gas and Electric will not meet the standard due to sustained environmental opposition to the Sunrise Power Link, which would bring substantial solar, geothermal, and wind power to the utility customers. At present SDG&E is very transmission constrained on bringing these sources to their customers. There primary options are photovoltaics!
Pacific Gas & Electric lost out due to significant environmental opposition to geothermal projects in the vicinity of Medicine Lake; some groups calling these plants " big polluters" even though geothermal is a clean energy technology.
Southern California Edison is closest to meeting the 20% by 2010 standard, which is amazing given that they are the largest of the three investor-owned utilities in California.
They have worked feverishly for several years to bring transmission lines to Tehachapi to access up to 4,000 MW of wind power over the next few years.
Now we move to concentrated solar power. Some believe this is critical to our energy future, and big companies have proposed big projects, some of which could be online starting in 2010 at the earliest. However, it has been environmental groups who opposed those projects to protect desert species and unsightly transmission lines.
So which is it?
Do we want big solar, wind, and geothermal projects instead of coal, nuclear, and increasingly expensive natural gas?
This is the trade off: Lots of renewables means lots of transmission lines and impacts on the environment in remote scenic areas. It also means less pollution, less greenhouse gas emissions, and hopefully protects against major increases in power prices.
Yet, this law sends a signal that the people of California want to have their cake and eat it to. They want renewables, but not in any places they consider scenic, and they don't want to pay too much for it. Quite a demand, don't you think?
The Republicans in Congress, in the meanwhile, are opposing tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal. The expiration of these tax credits may lead to many of the renewable energy projects in the pipeline being canceled anyway.
What needs to happen is for the tax credits, like the ITC and PTC to be extended for the long-term, and for California to have a 25% by 2025 standard for non-large hydro renewables. This is a goal that can be met and exceeded. However, we can't just set ridiculously high goals, then oppose policies to meet them, and then fine utilities for not obtaining the power from power plants that weren't built because they were opposed by the same people who voted for this bill!
The renewable energy industry in the U.S. needs to be nurtured. State RPS laws are important, because they drive the market for renewable energy. However, we need sensible policy. Even the existing RPS, which is a good policy, has encouraged utilities to sign contracts for projects in remote locations where the developer has little money and doesn't even own the land! Perhaps utilities were doing this to say "hey, we signed the contract, and the developer couldn't deliver, sorry." This 50% standard will lead to the same.
Renewable energy is already in high demand due to soaring oil and natural prices. When Mr. Bush is out of office, and hopefully President Obama is calling the shots to the Democratically controlled House and Senate, we will get our tax credits back. The industry will get back its research funding, and universities will get back their funding to train the next generation of renewable energy engineers.
However, this law sets goals as a political statement by people who don't know the first thing about energy policy and energy in general.
Besides, the best thing we can do right now is promote energy efficiency. We need money spent for retrofits to heating and air conditioning, more efficient lighting, weatherization, and any type of conservation measures we can muster. You don't solve energy problems by legislating fantasies, you solve them by implementing actions and actually improving technology and innovation.