California's energy crackdown

The California Public Utilities Commission was a busy body Thursday, launching a new long-term energy-efficiency program, approving two biomass projects and voting to oppose Proposition 7, the hotly contested renewable-energy voter initiative.

Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich, the PUC's energy-efficiency maven, acknowledged that California has come a long way in saving energy, but it has mostly been through incremental changes to buildings and appliances, along with a shift to compact fluorescent bulbs.

With the pressing need to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gases, more was required. So Grueneich prodded consumer groups, energy experts and state agencies to come up with an ambitious program to move toward "long-term deeper savings which impact the fundamental ways in which California's residents and businesses use energy."

The result is the new Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan for 2009 through 2020. You can be sure it is not just about changing your light bulbs.

Under the plan, by 2020 all new residential construction would be "zero net energy," meaning that the homes' entire needs would be served by non-grid technology, such as rooftop solar panels or small-scale renewable-energy projects serving more than one home or business. And all eligible low-income homes would be made energy-efficient. New efficiency standards would be adopted for ventilation, heating and air conditioning systems.

By 2030 all new commercial buildings would have to be "zero net energy."

V. John White, a key player in the state's energy debates and head of the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies called the new plan "a very important change in direction."

And PUC Commissioner John Bohn noted that "squeezing greater efficiency out of our current uses of electrical power is our best and least costly source of additional supplies."

As for the panel's vote against Proposition 7, commissioners deemed the November ballot initiative too rigid and unworkable. It would "seriously interfere" with renewable-energy projects underway, they said.

Commission President Michael R. Peevey acknowledged that current renewable-energy programs have problems but said they should be fixed with "a finer instrument than the blunt hammer of a ballot initiative."

-- Elizabeth Douglass

Photo: Windmill farm near Palm Springs. Credit: Lee Celano AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Austin Puglisi]

I am very glad to read the LA Times editorial against Proposition 7. This plan is the wrong way to move California towards renewable energy. I urge people to read the document. In addition to creating a new beaurocracy it would "fast-track" dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of industrial-scale power plants and associated transmission corridors with 150-ft high towers. Many of these proposed projects are in environmentally sensitive areas including Big Morongo Canyon Preserve, Pioneertown Mountains Preserve, Oak Glen Preserve, and Joshua Tree Notional Park. Local residents would be given little input into the approval process, and no decision-making power, and be specifically prohibited from challenging approvals.

California deserts would be devastated by this. People who have never seen the beauty of our deserts want to sacrifice them for a promised "greater good". But it's really for the "good" of a wealthy few.

Also, as mentioned in the LA Times editorial, small energy producers are specifically excluded from the priveleges created by Proposition 7. There is no ambiguity in the text of the document. There are no provisions for "point-of-use" solar power production or conservation.

Proposition 7, in the end, is little more than a massive give-away of public lands and taxpayer dollars to multimillion-dollar energy companies.

[sheila]

Austin is right. California needs feed-in tariffs, loans, subsidies and other incentives to INDIVIDUALS for a massive retrofit to get our structures to "net-zero" (not just new construction), to PAY individuals who produce more power than they consume, and to enable all of us to break free of the Big Energy Monopoly cycle of the 20th century.

why would we want to destroy our open spaces, let Big Energy force us from our homes, further de-stabilize the grid and deny ourselves an opportunity for energy and financial independence? Prop 7 and many of the other "renewable" energy plans are nothing but Big Energy mercenaries, who will socialize all the costs of their profiteering onto our land, our ratepayers and taxpayers.

there is a better way - local, point of use conservation, storage and generation solutions are the answer. we just need policies that will encourage the people of California, who are clearly well-intentioned but who are being manipulated by the propaganda of Big Solar and Big Wind (and their paid puppets in Big Environmental Orgs).

[trotzalot]

the paid puppets are the environmental groups opposed to prop.7 who are being paid by the BIG UTILITY companies (they're spending close to $28 million). the only people who will benefit from prop 7 are the PEOPLE (spending $5 million)! we will benefit w. more than 370,000 high wage jobs, a better system of powering energy in California, and a cleaner more habitable earth!

check into it better before you start spreading misleading statements or start using the utility companies' talking points!

a handy place to start:http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)

[Solar Cali Girl]

I challenge readers to point to a provision in the text of Prop 7 that excludes small renewable providers. You won’t find it because there is none. As Dr. Donald Aitken, one of the original proponents of the Renewables Portfolio Standard, and David Freeman, the ‘green cowboy’ who helped get California out of the deregulation-caused energy crisis have pointed out, the definition of “eligible renewable” under the initiative wording is maintained as presently defined in California law, which includes renewables of all major types and all sizes. The big utilities – PG&E, Sempra, and Edison are making this patently false claim to scare voters because they do not want to change their ways. What is happening is an out and out greenwashing by the utilities of their campaign to defeat real progress in solving the climate crisis.

40% of greenhouse gasses come from electricity generating plants. By putting the onus on utilities, we make real change! By relying ONLY on every day consumers to put solar panels on the rooftop, we don’t even make a dent in the crisis that challenges humanities very existence.

Don’t be fooled by the utility-funded campaign and the ‘environmentalists’ who are in bed with them. Read the truth here: http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/