- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tam Hunt: Where Are the Local Stimulus Packages?
“Some states — including Michigan — already see renewable energy as their future: It’s the only sector that appears to be making room for more employees despite the recession.” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4
Add California to the list of states that “see renewable energy as their future.” Our employment figures are down on a net basis, but renewable energy and energy efficiency remain bright spots in an otherwise maudlin economy.
With President-elect Barack Obama hours away from his inauguration and many states already working on climate change mitigation plans, 2009 will be the year to turn the rhetoric of the green energy revolution into reality. He stated on the campaign trail: “Breaking our oil addiction ... is going to take nothing less than the complete transformation of our economy.”
Now he’s doing more than talk; he has already presented his stimulus package to Congress, calling for about $800 billion of investments in projects that will have a quick impact on job creation — and, most important, from my perspective, at least $15 billion for renewable energy, better transportation and energy efficiency. Obama has said repeatedly that the need for action on climate change and energy independence is urgent. And he recognizes that strong action to mitigate these problems will also provide a substantial boost to our economy, helping to address the current economic slump.
By my count, that’s at least three birds with one stone: climate change, energy independence, and a major boost to the economy.
The obvious follow-up question: if this equation holds true at the federal level, why not at the state and local levels? A clear difference between the federal, state and local levels is that authority to exceed budget limits in any given year is more restricted for state and local governments than it is for the federal government. But there are many ways to follow Obama’s lead without breaking state and local coffers, even on a temporary basis.
One way states can provide a boost is by enacting aggressive renewable energy standards. California already has one of the most aggressive in the country, with investor-owned utilities required to obtain 20 percent renewables by 2010. More than half the states now have these mandates. But there’s a dark secret behind these mandates: most of them aren’t really mandates. Rather, they’re mandates with “weak teeth” because there are often loopholes or soft penalties for noncompliance. California’s mandate comes with a three-year leeway — until 2013 — before penalties are even allowed. And the penalties that can be applied cap out at only $25 million per utility per year. For businesses as large as Pacific Gas & Electric of Southern California Edison, this isn’t very much penalty. Last, commissioners are often too friendly with the utilities they regulate. For California (the state I know most about), I am of the view that it’s unlikely the current Public Utilities Commission will apply penalties for utility noncompliance. But I hope we won’t even come to that juncture, due to utilities complying with the mandate instead of courting penalties.
A much better way to avoid the whole debate over mandates and penalties is for states to enact “must take” laws for renewable energy. Generally labeled “feed-in tariffs,” these laws require utilities to buy renewable energy offered at or below a price set by regulators. This is an overtly non-free-market policy, but it can make sense as a kick start for an industry that will ultimately pay for itself many times over. As I wrote previously, even if ratepayers end up subsidizing feed-in tariffs for a few years, the direct and economic benefits from reduced natural gas prices, climate change mitigation, job creation and a host of other benefits, will very likely outweigh the costs in a relatively short time. California and many other states are currently considering enacting European-style feed-in tariffs that should provide a serious boost for renewables.
Even closer to the ground, local governments can do a lot independent of state and national policies. Local governments are major employers and major energy users, so if they change their own energy consumption habits this will have an impact. By setting goals for energy conservation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions, local governments not only save money themselves, they also set an example for individuals, businesses and others in their jurisdictions. We are recommending that local governments in our region commit to becoming “carbon neutral” by 2020, as a way to save money and to set an example.
Local governments can also enact their own building energy-efficiency standards. By doing so, they can spur local investment in energy-efficiency projects, creating jobs and leading to cost savings for homeowners and businesses through energy savings. The Architecture 2030 Challenge is a national movement urging local governments to enact policies leading to carbon-neutral buildings by 2030. It’s been implemented here in Santa Barbara and is making headway in many other jurisdictions.
Beyond their own consumption patterns and building codes, local governments can take the reins more firmly and become power providers. There are various ways to do this, but the two most viable options are by becoming a municipal or public utility district (which can, confusingly, include county governments as partners) or through Community Choice Aggregation.
Municipal utility districts are very hard to create because they invite long and expensive legal battles with the local investor-owned utility company (such as PG&E or Edison). Very few new municipal utility districts have been created in recent decades as a result.
The Community Choice Aggregation law was enacted in 2002 as a middle-ground solution between full municipal utility control and full investor-owned utility control. Under CCA, cities and counties can choose to buy or build energy facilities on behalf of their residents. It’s that simple. The investor-owned utility district still ships the power over its own transmission lines and still bills the customers. The investor-owned utility doesn’t even lose any money because they don’t, in states like California that have “de-coupled” profits from actual sales of power, make money on power sales. They make money on infrastructure like transmission lines.
The CCA’s primary benefit is that it provides a choice over what types of power a given region receives. A region could choose to get 100 percent renewable energy — far beyond anything the private utilities will provide. Another benefit is that public entities like a CCA organization have access to much cheaper money than investor-owned utilities. In other words, the cost of borrowing money is far lower. And nor do they have to make a profit or pay taxes, as investor-owned utilities do.
Last, by choosing to build renewables under CCA, local governments can provide jobs and local infusions of capital that will help kick-start local economies more generally. Accordingly, CCA should be considered by every region in California, and other states that have their own CCA laws, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio.
Beyond renewable energy, there are tremendous savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions available through better mass transit and transportation policies more generally. These include better bus systems, more carpool lanes, ride-sharing options, bike lanes and many other policies that can be enacted locally. More cutting-edge options include creating a charging infrastructure for the coming new generation of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles, led by companies like Better Place.
The bottom line is that we know renewable energy and less carbon-intensive transportation are the waves of the future. And we know that by riding these waves, all parts of our country may benefit economically through job creation and other economic benefits. At the same time, we will be working toward lowering our greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing our energy independence.
So why aren’t we doing it already? The problem is that local elected officials are either not visionary enough or not being pressed enough on these issues. The truths I’ve outlined are starting to percolate into the public consciousness, but slowly. We all need to do our part by spreading the word about the nexus between economic growth and renewable energy — and, in particular, let your elected officials know you want them to take action.
— Tam Hunt is energy program director and an attorney for the Community Environmental Council, and is a lecturer in renewable energy law and policy at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Click here for the CEC’s regional energy blueprint.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 01.20.09 @ 03:42 AM
Good idea Tam, let’s embrace European style socialism to stimulate our economy. After all, look how many jobs those countries have created in the last 8 years. What next? Mexico style drug cartels to help us fight the war on drugs?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.20.09 @ 05:25 AM
“Renewable energy” schemes are the next great scam. Like the dotcom and real estate frauds, wind and solar scams require hustlers and suckers.
The hustlers hawking wind and solar are attempting to lure suckers into investing by making false claims about the amount of electricity “renewable energy” can produce and the cost.
Wind farms, such as the recently approved Lompoc Wind Farm, can only produce, on average, 25% of the promised power. In the case of Lompoc, the project is rated at 97 megawatts, but will produce, on average, 24.5 MW. The public is not being told this fact. The cost of producing electricity from wind is at least twice that of natural gas.
But there’s a sucker born every minute, and those suckers will buy into a scam like wind and solar power, just like they bought condos at the top of the bubble.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.21.09 @ 01:43 PM
Tam, you do not seem like the scam artist or sucker type. So why are you preaching climate change like there is anything anyone can do about it? You know as well as the science community that the only constant in climate modeling is change. When the climate stops changing that is when we ought to be really worried (take Venus and Mars as an example of climates in a non-changing equilibrium). You know that the planet has been in a warming cycle since the last ice age and that the climate has historically been a lot warmer. You also know that burning fossil fuels returns to the atmosphere CO2 that was once already there. The climate change religion is the latest scare scam being used to usher socialism and government control over behavior. Your article gives this up in the form of people’s consumption patterns and what ought to be done about them. What you and the renewable energy advocates aren’t telling people is what the cost is going to be in an expensive scavenging type energy production and distribution system. We all enjoy the benefit of cheap plentiful energy and the liberation it gives us from merely subsistence living. Do you really want the majority of your work output to go toward transportation, food and shelter not to mention staying warm in the winter? Think about that Tam. Spending the majority of your time just surviving, rather than enjoying your intellectual pursuits, however misguided they may be. Renewables will not replace cheap oil period. They will only force industrialized nations back to subsistence living and starve third world nations to death. You know this. You also know that the only alternative is to develop nuclear and geothermal and to get there we need to burn our own coal and natural gas right now. But you and the climate change monkeys have too much invested in your bring-on-socialist-government- control-through-fear to ever go down this road. No instead you hype up that which you know will not work unless we all take a great step backward. Until you come clean much of the work being done on energy efficiency and alternatives that have a chance at success will get the “scam artist” treatment from the more skeptical and researched in our society.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.09 @ 09:10 AM
Welfare has been a 40 plus year complete failure, free money comes at a big cost. We all know nothing is free, and govrnment does nothing well.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.12.09 @ 03:27 PM
There is only one route to near-term energy independence and it’s called domestic oil drilling.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will
Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?
Tam Hunt: The Decline and Fall of the Oil Age
High oil prices and new technologies a driving force behind massive transformation
Tam Hunt: Is It Time for California to Phase Out Nuclear Power?
There may be no better time than the present to begin a more aggressive transition to alternative power sources
Tam Hunt: Wiki-Government As an Antidote to Corruption
Crowdsourcing government could take many different forms and is spreading as an idea
Tam Hunt: A Postmortem of America’s War in Iraq
As a country, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to never again abide an illegal U.S. war and military atrocities by our troops
Weather: Fair 53.0º
Search Noozhawk »
