California Senate votes for stronger renewable energy mandate

The state Senate voted today to require private utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind power by the year 2020, despite complaints from many lawmakers that it will cost ratepayers $1.8 billion more annually.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said the bill, which now goes to the Assembly, would help pave the way to a more environmental friendly future.

"The green economy is the economy of the future," Steinberg said. "The environment and the economy go together."

However, Sen. John Benoit (R-Palm Desert) said the mandate will not only hurt residents who are already having trouble paying their bills, but will also drive manufacturing firms out of the state.

"We are going to make ourselves the greenest Third World economy in the world," Benoit said.

Currently, investor-owned utilities including Southern California Edison, face a requirement that 20% of the energy they sell come from renewable sources by next year.

Less than a year after California voters rejected a ballot measure to increase the mandate to 50% by 2025, Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) has authored SB 14, which would require 33% by 2020. The standard mirrors the level set in an executive order issued by the governor in November.

"We ought to be doing this because it’s going to clean up the air," Simitian said during a more than hour-long debate. "We ought to be doing this because it will address climate change."

The vote was 21-16 with the Republicans joined by Sen. Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) in opposing the measure.

"I'm concerned that this bill is moving too fast without sufficient scrutiny," Wright told his colleagues. "If you require energy companies to purchase something they don’t really need you increase cost."

-- Patrick McGreevy

Photo: An array of mirrors concentrates sunlight at an eSolar test facility in Antelope Valley. Credit: Handout/eSolar

Comments

[Solar Energy Adovocate]

what is driving the solar energy advantages initiatives....?
obviously, there are clear indications that the best form of energy choice is going green.

I believe that public awareness, combined with Government incentives, will lead to a much greater uptake of solar panel electricity, with many ambitious 'DIYers' installing it themselves. Manufacturers of solar panel electricity
will then continue to gradually reduce solar panel cost for solar panels and related equipment, perhaps comparable to the way home computers have become cheaper over recent years

[Solar Power Business]

Great post!!! Thanks...

[abel]

Informative piece. We can't lose sight of the fact that California voters strongly support economic stimulus spending that creates new jobs in fields that are good for the environment. Check out the findings here http://www.ellabakercenter.org/index.php?p=gcjc_green_jobs_poll

[Nick Panchev]

O.K. Keep the Desert.
O.K. Keep the Water.
O.K. Forget about Renewable Energy in California.
O.K. Create Jobs by the old status quo.
O.K. Don't balk at Renewable IPPs; they will not exist, many are already gone.
O.K. If FPL can not get today an o.k., PSA says trash-out of their solar farm, no one can.
O.K. Do not walk but run from California and indubitably to another Country.
O.K. Herein above is the cumulative impacts: No Project Alternative, No Jobs and all that RPS fiasco is only good on paper, recycled paper.
O.K. Success. All of those Green IPPs will be gone and gone for good.
Gracias por nada. Nadie será bienvenido en Mexico.

[sheila]

The RPS is being used as an excuse to permanently destroy millions and millions of acres of public lands -intact, carbon absorbing ecosystems, to deplete billions of gallons of groundwater every year and to re-entrench Big Energy monopolies with wasteful, unneeded, giant power plants far from where the energy is needed - which will also greatly increase GHGS!

Meanwhile, the ONLY successful model to get fast, affordable, harmless and democratic energy (feed in tariffs) is totally ignored in this article and in this state in favor of failed RPS. It is insane. Now, they are considering the totally failed REC model, which has been proven by the NREL, no less, to be far less effective and far more expensive for ratepayers? Where is this side of the story? This is obviously a critical facet to this RPS story!

http://tinyurl.com/cfw88r

From the NREL: "All the research shows feed-in tariffs have demonstrated a higher degree of cost efficiency than REC trading models," he said. "That's not a controversial conclusion. All the evidence points to that."