Sunday, May 27 , 2018, 11:17 am | Fair 62º


Tam Hunt: Schwarzenegger Fails to Live Up to His Green Goals

When it comes to renewable energy regulations and mandates, the governor is trying to have it both ways

In a strange but interesting demonstration of cynicism, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed an executive order directing state agencies to develop regulations requiring all utilities to achieve 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 — while at the same time promising to veto a far stronger and smarter mandate in two similar bills finally passed by the Legislature.

Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt

California political observers will recall that Schwarzenegger campaigned in his first gubernatorial race on a 40 percent by 2020 goal, making renewable energy the front piece of his effort to paint himself as the environmentalist governor to outdo the likes of Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown) himself, the once and perhaps future governor. As I mentioned in my last column, however, the state is failing to meet current renewable energy mandates, backsliding from more than 13 percent renewables in 2002 (excluding large hydro, which is about 20 percent of the state total), when the current system was put in place, to about 10.6 percent in 2008. What gives?

The current system, SB 1078’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which governs utility-scale renewable energy, has been very slow to produce new projects for a variety of reasons. The main reasons have been lack of adequate transmission and inadequate pricing for renewable energy other than wind power. These problems may be on their way to being solved, with a slough of new projects in the pipeline and transmission line construction proceeding, albeit sloooowly. But it’s still clear that we need some major changes to our current system if we are to achieve the current 20 percent by 2010 (which has already slipped to 2012 or so) mandate, let alone the 33 percent by 2020 mandate.

Readers who follow California energy politics may also recall that the Legislature’s new bills (SB 14 and AB 64) are only the latest efforts in a multiyear battle to get a 33 percent bill passed. Last year’s casualty was SB 411, which failed even though it was a toothless mandate, gutted by the opposition before it was finally killed. Similar bills failed in the preceding three years. It is, then, quite a feat that the Legislature finally got its act together to pass these two bills. It is also testimony to the seriousness of the legislative leaders that these bills passed and attracted the support of two of the big three utilities, as well as most of the large environmental groups. Each of the bills makes a number of changes to the RPS system, attempting to correct the flaws that have made the program so ineffective in the first seven years of its operation.

Schwarzenegger threatened his veto mainly based on the argument that the bills allow only 30 percent of out-of-state “unbundled” renewable energy certificates (RECs, which represent the green attributes of renewable energy as a separate commodity from the power itself) to satisfy the mandate. SB 14 actually allows only 25 percent of RECs to satisfy the mandate.

Schwarzenegger’s spokesman also made the bizarre argument that the bills would “kill the California solar industry.” This seems to be a standard argument regarding renewable energy legislation in the state, as it has been used erroneously many times in the past (with last year’s ill-fated Proposition 7, for example, when it was argued, equally bizarrely, that it would kill the state’s solar industry).

Assuming charitably that the REC limitation is the real reason for the threatened veto, it seems a strange rationale. Yes, if climate change is our sole concern for a higher mandate, it matters naught where the renewable energy is produced. But advocates of renewable energy have never argued that climate change is the only motivation for better renewable energy policies.

Rather, there are many other benefits from more wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydro power, including local job creation in manufacturing, construction, operations and maintenance. If projects are out of state, many of the new jobs will also be out of state. Similarly, the tax revenue from such projects will also be out of state. And the energy independence benefits will be out of state.

So it makes quite good sense to limit the degree to which out-of-state projects can satisfy the mandate. I think a 25 percent to 30 percent limitation is quite reasonable and this was debated by all sides working on the bills.

state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Santa Cruz, the author of SB 14, argued correctly that an executive order is a far worse way than legislation to enact a new mandate.

“As soon as he leaves office, the next governor could undo the order,” Simitian said. “The order could be wiped off the books in 18 months.” Executive orders may be used to implement details of already existing legislation, not to effectively make new law without due process.

The executive order itself is also sneaky: paragraph one directs the state Air Resources Board (CARB, the agency tasked with implementing AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, the “big daddy” of California’s climate change legislation) to complete regulations regarding a 33 percent mandate, but leaves the date for reaching this goal up to CARB. There have, however, been numerous analyses of this target, including a recent analysis by the state Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, finding that achieving the 33 percent mandate by 2020 is “highly ambitious” but achievable if action is taken quickly and will lead to a utility rate increase of only 0.5-1.1 cents per kilowatt hour above the reference case scenario (this is a 3-6 percent increase by 2020, which is a bargain when we consider the benefits of renewable energy). The CPUC projections do not, however, include any cost reductions in renewable-energy technologies, which is an unfortunate and unrealistic assumption.

The executive order contains almost no details regarding implementation of the 33 percent RPS — and this is obviously intentional. Schwarzenegger apparently preferred to leave all details to CARB, the CPUC and the Energy Commission (which must be consulted by CARB in its regulatory process). Sometimes this approach can be good. But in this case, because we obviously need a major overhaul of the current RPS system, simply directing the state agencies to implement rules for a 33 percent RPS seems unwise. It’s unlikely that these agencies will take big risks or put forth big ideas for revamping the RPS system. This is the Legislature’s and the governor’s job. Schwarzenegger has said, with his order, effectively: “I don’t like the Legislature’s bills, but I don’t have any better ideas of my own. So I’m going to punt this to the state agencies.”

We can do much better and we can hope that Schwarzenegger will re-consider his veto threats. Now that he has accrued some increased limelight with his executive order and the accompanying media attention, let’s hope he’ll return to work with the Legislature and the state agencies in implementing real reform.

— Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a developer of medium-scale wind, solar and biomass projects. He is also a lecturer in climate change law and policy at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >