Applied Materials' newly completed solar energy system at their Sunnyvale, Calif., research campus is one of the largest corporate solar power installations in the United States. (Business Wire)
With Prop. 7, California argues its energy future
The ballot initiative would mandate more renewables. So why are many environmentalists against it?
By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ October 16, 2008 edition
Reporter Dan Wood discusses reaction by environmental groups to a proposed California law on next month's ballot that would require the state to get half of its electricity from solar and other clean energy sources by 2025.
Reporter Dan Wood
Los Angeles
California, which leads the country in cutting the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, is trying to accelerate its “green revolution.”
But several leading research and environmental organizations warn that the latest attempt could backfire, reducing the state’s push to embrace renewable energy.
A citizen’s initiative – Proposition 7, which goes before voters Nov. 4 – requires all electric utilities to provide half of their electricity from solar and other clean energy sources by 2025. The initiative would double what utilities are now asked to do under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. Currently, California utilities derive about 11 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.
Meanwhile, the state is already struggling to implement the landmark California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requiring a 25 percent cut in industrial greenhouse gases by 2020.
Prop. 7 is a dangerous anomaly, say several key observers, because it is well meaning, but incompetently written.
“This was put together by a firm with no experience in this industry with political consultants whose only focus was to write a title and summary that made it appealing to voters,” says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a nonprofit research and advocacy group in Sacramento.
“This is a very complicated initiative on top of existing state law which is not meeting its goals because of flaws,” says Mr. White. “They should have asked for help and didn’t. They made several unintentional mistakes because of the way they drafted it.”
Ralph Cavanaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says, “We would be for it if it did what it said, which was to raise our renewable energy contributions.” But he says the drafters “botched” the definition of renewables by excluding power plants under 30 megawatts. And he says the drafters “rewrote the entire rule book on where you can put the power plants and transmission lines … a guarantee for years of obstruction and delay.” As a result, he says, “This is the most impressive body of opposition I’ve ever seen.”
Organizations fighting the initiative include NRDC, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, plus all of the state’s major renewable energy companies.
Also against the measure are the Democratic and Republican parties, the California Taxpayers’ Association, and the state Chamber of Commerce.
One of the major voices strongly in favor of the initiative is David Freeman, author of “Winning Our Energy Independence.”
“No one seems to fully appreciate the speed with which global warming is happening and how fast the polar ice caps are melting,” says Mr. Freeman, who has held top positions at several major energy agencies, including the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “I think the environmental movement is wrong on this one.”
A July California Field Poll showed low voter awareness of Prop. 7 but 63 percent of likely voters in favor. Since then the number of state newspapers editorializing against the measure has grown to 17, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register.
The state’s independent Legislative Analyst directly challenged one claim of the initiatives drafters, that the measure would “reduce the rising costs of energy.”
Instead, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill concluded: “Higher electricity rates are more likely in the short term,” and “the same cost factors … might also lead to higher, long-run electricity rates.”
Meanwhile the debate is getting hotter and heavier.
“Prop. 7 would force the conversion from affordable and proven coal, oil and nuclear power,” wrote the Orange County Register. “If solar and wind are so economical, affordable and reasonable, why haven’t utilities already converted?”
Counters Freeman: “Utilities are used to running their plants on dirty fuels and will go on doing so unless required to switch.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Carolina | 10.16.08
power plants under 30 megawatts are not excluded!!! Prop. 7 in no way excludes renewable energy companies of any size from selling their power on the market – in fact it specifically includes small companies. There is a portion of Prop. 7 that deals with permitting and citing which is the process to build a renewable energy plant. In this section there are two separate processes – one for small plants under 30MW and one for large plants over 30MW. This is the same as if you were building a one story house -you would go through a total different process and set of requirements than someone building a 20 story skyscraper. However the utilities companies are using this section to scare small companies and voters into thinking Prop. 7 will excludes small businesses which is just not true, they would just go through a different process that is all. We must vote YES on 7 so that we may take the action needed to make the changes which will make us a cleaner state not dependent on dirty coal which will only prevent the future generation from enjoying a clean California. Vote YES on 7.
3. Hope Simpson | 10.16.08
Prop 7 does not shut out smaller plants because it does nothing to change current law on the books - which gives these smaller plants state subsidies and when they go about builiding their plants, they will only have to go through city and county permitting regulations to help them build their plants faster. In actuality, Prop 7 HELPS smaller plants. It is clear these utilities are just grasping at straws to scare voters. Unfortuantely, these environmental groups are in the pockets of the utility comapies. The NRDC and Ralph Cavanugh, who was interviewed in this article, PUSHED FOR DEREGULATION, WHICH LEAD TO OUR 2001 ENERGY CRISIS!!! The article, How the Environmentalists Sold Out to Save Enron, is VERY INFORMATIVE. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html.
VOTE YES ON 7!
4. Chris Peterson | 10.16.08
I believe the argument against Proposition 7 is that, while the proposition does not *exclude* small energy companies, the 30 megawatts definition means that only big energy companies will be able to “play”. Small community energy providers and innovative startups will be shut out, granting a de facto monopoly to today’s tired, foot-dragging energy companies like PG&E.
But sometimes the “perfect” is the enemy of the “good” (enough right now).
5. Chris Peterson | 10.16.08
I believe the argument against Proposition 7 is that, while the proposition does not *exclude* small energy companies, the 30 megawatts definition means that only big energy companies will be able to “play”. Small community energy providers and innovative startups will be shut out, granting a de facto monopoly to today’s tired, foot-dragging energy companies like PG&E.
But sometimes the “perfect” is the enemy of the “good” (enough right now).
6. Hope Simpson | 10.16.08
Prop 7 does not shut out smaller plants because it does nothing to change current law on the books - which gives these smaller plants state subsidies and when they go about building their plants, they will only have to go through city and county permitting regulations to help them build their plants faster. In actuality, Prop 7 HELPS smaller plants. It is clear these utilities are just grasping at straws to scare voters. Unfortunately, these environmental groups are in the pockets of the utility companies. The NRDC and Ralph Cavanaugh, who was interviewed in this article, PUSHED FOR DEREGULATION, WHICH LEAD TO OUR 2001 ENERGY CRISIS!!! The article, How the Environmentalists Sold Out to Save Enron, is VERY INFORMATIVE. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html.
VOTE YES ON 7!
7. Hope Simpson | 10.16.08
Prop 7 does not shut out smaller plants because it does nothing to change current law on the books - which gives these smaller plants state subsidies and when they go about building their plants, they will only have to go through city and county permitting regulations to help them build their plants faster. In actuality, Prop 7 HELPS smaller plants. It is clear these utilities are just grasping at straws to scare voters. Unfortunately, these environmental groups are in the pockets of the utility companies. The NRDC and Ralph Cavanaugh, who was interviewed in this article, PUSHED FOR DEREGULATION, WHICH LEAD TO OUR 2001 ENERGY CRISIS!!! The article, How the Environmentalists Sold Out to Save Enron, is VERY INFORMATIVE. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html.
VOTE YES ON 7!
8. Chris Peterson | 10.16.08
Hope: so ignoring the NRDC (given their Enron connections), why would the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and Union of Concerned Scientists be against Proposition 7 if it indeed “helps smaller plants”?
9. Chris Peterson | 10.16.08
And I forgot to add that the California Green Party is against Prop 7:
http://www.cagreens.org/elections/2008/Propositions.081104.shtml
10. Brendan James | 10.16.08
Chris: The Sierra Club has lobbyists that are paid to work with the Sacramento legislature to improve energy independence…but you forget to mention that they are completely for a cap and trade program in California. The League of Conservation Voters conspired with the utilities for deregulation which led to the Enron Crisis. And the Union of Concerned Scientists have it dead wrong. They use the same arguments that the big utilities began using. Dr. Donald Aitken, retired leading scientists for the Union of Concerned Scientists has spoken loudly agaisnt the Union and their decision.
And to answer the fast-tracking of largescale contracts: We are facing a climate crisis. Fast tracking large contracts DOES not favor largescale…think about the red tape that is currently in place. This simply gets rid of that. Small scale contracts still go through the normal process. This will not “force” the utilities just to use large corporations at all. It’s just simple diversification.
A YES VOTE ON PROP 7 will add teeth and incentives for the utilities. The Green party simply picks everything apart. They will be agaisnt the same thing even if it is done through the legislature. This irritates me. I’m voting yes on 7!
11. Kate | 10.17.08
This article is disappointing at best. It really just glosses over the major issues on both sides of the proposition. As for the comments here, the people who are saying that Prop 7 doesn’t exclude small providers are simply wrong. There’s nothing especially murky about the way small providers are defined out of participation in the new renewable energy market created by the proposition. I’ve written extensively about this (http://toxicculture.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/proposition-7-again/), but the trick is the defining of “solar and clean energy plant” as 30 MW or more. Chris is right - those small providers can continue to build under Prop 7; it’s just that they will be excluded from the lucrative sellers’ market created by the initiative.
12. thomas freund | 10.17.08
how can people make charges that small suppliers are excluded when text specifically includes them and in a good way allowing small producers to have a simpler process. can not find anywhere in text of prop that small producers are excluded from lucrative market.
13. Solar Cali Girl | 10.18.08
Chris: Visit my website Confused in Solar California at http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/. I had the exact question you had: why are the environmentalists opposed to prop 7? Then I started looking at the financial information available on the internet, and looking at their board memberships, and was shocked and appalled when I discovered that they have basically been hijacked by big industry interests. I don’t think you should be asking: why do these groups oppose prop 7. I think you should be asking: Why are there current and former PG&E, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison EXECUTIVES sitting on the boards of directors of the CLVC? Why does the Union of Concerned Scientists have a staff person sitting on the board of every major industry group trying to make money off of renewable energy and not trying to force change? Basically, why have the main stream enviros sold us out to the Big Utilities?? You, and I, will not be the first to ask. “Green Inc” is a recently published book from an insider who tells us in detail how in bed with Big Industry these major enviro groups you list are. And there’s a book called “Who owns the sunshine,” about how utilities and environmentalists have linked up to stop solar production. And there is a book called “A Dime’s Worth of Difference,” that details how the NRDC was founded by Southern Cal Edison CEO John Bryson and how NRDC bullies other enviro groups to help the Big Utilities’ agenda. I suggest you read any or all of them, and my website. The Big Utilities are trying to hoodwink voters by hiding behind a green halo. Let’s not be fooled!
14. desert d. | 10.22.08
I have a completely different perspective on this. I am an artist living in the Mojave Desert - now in Joshua Tree, but previously in an all-solar powered house 10 miles off-grid, that we built 13 years ago. I am obviously pro-solar power and pro-wind power. I have been called a “conservationist” artist because of my work based on remote desert landscapes, and my strong attachment to the incredibly beautiful and transformational land here. The land I love is being threatened on all sides by expanding development: from the 29 Palms Marine Base expansion, from huge dumps for urban refuse, from increasing off-road vehicle use and abuse, a new Indian casino in 29 Palms on the northern edge of Joshua Tree National Park, to so-called “green” energy development - which would cover the pristine desert wilderness that I love with solar collection fields, wind generators, and energy corridors of high towers carrying electricity to the L.A. metropolis - when a more logical and environmentally sensitive solution would be to install solar panels on urban rooftops. My fear about the possibility of Proposition 7 passing, is that the Mojave would be destroyed in the rush to meet this unrealistic goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025 - it being the fastest, easiest land to exploit, and would be so quickly covered with all this energy development before the more logical alternatives would have a chance to be put in place - the urban rooftop collection systems, for example. I encourage you all to vote no on prop. 7, and check out Pursol Solar Systems. They will install a solar power system on your rooftop, completely free of charge, in exchange for a reduction of your monthly electric power bill (which will be locked in at the same rate for 20 years). You would also have the option to buy this system. This is what I am doing at my new house here in Joshua Tree.
15. PanAmMan | 10.24.08
Well people, the operative word here is that the “perfect” is often the enemy of the “good”. In this case the “GREAT”. So we just turn arround in 2 years and add a bill which “ADD” the small producers to the SELLERS market. nothing in prop 7 prevents that!
GREAT followed by GREAT = PERFECT!
Perfection takes time and is almost always achieved in steps!
16. Roof Roof | 11.01.08
Prop 7 would NOT negatively affect small renewable companies and NRDC surely knows this. Prop 7 makes no change to existing law on this issue. Prop 7 does put in place a fast track permitting process for projects 30 MW and up, but this has no impact on the eligibility of smaller projects re renewable energy requirements more generally.
Prop 7 does NOT require utilities to accept contracts at 10% over the market price. It provides that such contracts are reasonable “per se,” giving a potential boost for renewable energy contracts. Only contracts at or below the market price are required to be taken by the utilities. Such misreadings of Prop 7’s language are puzzling.
Prop 7 valiantly attempts to create a fast track permitting process for renewable energy projects over 30 MW (and the necessaryu tranmission lines to connect them to the grid). But this process requires that an initial review find no significant adverse entironmental harm. If this initial review does find a possible significant harm, the normal process is used. Projects 30 MW and up are fairly large, so the chance of no significant environmental harm being found are slim to none. Ergo: this fast track process will probably never be used.
On balance, Prop 7 is a set of very smart policy changes that will take us far toward a renewable energy future. The current system is clearly not working, as we’ve had almost no new renewables in the last six years. Prop 7 will kick start the system and get us moving.
Cali Coaster — Oct 31 2008 11:50 PM
When the utility Companies spend $27,000,000 to stop Prop.7 you realize they don’t want to change. The ugly truth is the opponents of Prop. 7 will lose $$ if it passes. I do agree with the desert artist that solar panels need to be on the roofs of our homes and not in the desert.
17. H C Schwinn | 11.03.08
We need to stop worrying about the minor flaws of Prop 7 and focus on the bigger flaw, and that is its not asking for 100% change by 2020 to renwable energy sources. However, since the reality of our current catostrophic global situation is to much for most people to accept or understand, Prop 7 is at least trying to get us half way there. Vote yes on 7, our grandchildren will thank us for at least trying.
18. Ernest Haberkern | 11.04.08
What has been almost completely overlooked in this debate is that the language of Proposition 7 specifically replaces “the legislature” by “the people” as the author of the legislation governing renewable energy. The clear language turns this into a measure which can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. If, as the explicit language of the legislation makes clear, small solar producers - those firms producing photovoltaic systems on homes, businesses and government offices - are driven out of business; then it will be legally impossible to change the legislation except by another costly ballot measure.
I don’t think this was a mistake. I don’t think the language is “flawed”. I think the authors are interested in driving out the small firms that are currently the fastest growing producers of renewable energy systems. The reason: these small firms challenge the effective monopoly of the big power companies.
One other thing. The photovoltaic systems installed by these firms reduce the strain on the grid. They are located on your roof in crowded urban areas not in the middle of the desert.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. Energy Tough Love Blog » California Was A Disappointment In This Election - First the religious bigots again outlaw marriage for those that are gay | 11.06.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Frida Hernandez | 10.16.08
This article asks a very good question. But I still don’t understand. The yes on proposition 7 side makes a good case that the proposition doesn’t exclude small energy companies. Why are the environmental organizations listed above still stubbornly resisting? They say it was incompetently written. Who wrote it? I’ve seen the no ads. Are they benefiting from being on the same side as the utility companies listed in fine print? Can someone please look into this and write a comment to educate me? Or a follow up article? The only other thing that makes any sense to me is that the leaders of these environmental organizations don’t care about the people they are representing. Me and my neighbors in Hayward talk all the time about how scared we are of global warming. I’m scared for my two sons and my two granddaughters. I’m old, but they have a lot of life left to live.