Comments on: California Will Vote on Misleading Renewable Energy Initiatives http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/10/22/california-will-vote-on-misleading-renewable-energy-initiatives/ Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Wed, 23 May 2012 01:08:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Donald Aitken, Ph.D. http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/10/22/california-will-vote-on-misleading-renewable-energy-initiatives/comment-page-1/#comment-11292 Donald Aitken, Ph.D. Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:44:25 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=1389#comment-11292 This distresses me so much to read the untruths regarding Prop. 76 that have become the stuff of "urban legends", since they go from person to person, without a careful reading of Prop. 7! It is absolutely not true, for example, that Prop. 7 reduces the opportunity for environmental review. For the large systems (above 30MW), which require significant investment capital, the carrot of a six-month reduced "fast track" is offered, but only after a preliminary three-month environmental review to determine if there are no significant environmental problems. If that preliminary review shows that there might be, the review process reverts to the present one of 12-18 months. So Prop. 7 doesn't take away any environmental review opportunity, but adds an important possible carrot to attract the investment for the creation of tens of billions of dollars of new renewable energy industries and an estimated 370,000 new jobs. Similarly, the statement that "it will force consumers to pay 10% above the market rate of power" is also patently untrue, and not even part of Prop. 7. What Prop. 7 does is to tell the utilities that, as they address their 2% renewable energy portfolio additions each year to their generation portfolios, they must in good faith be offered renewable energy contracts that cost no more than 10% above the base cost, which is measured off of the cost of natural gas. That means that by 2025, if all the new renewable energy contracts cost 10% more (which is ridiculous, since wind is already cheaper, not more expensive), then 30% of the utilities' generation portfolios would have cost 10% more, adding only 3.3% to the cost to ratepayers. But since the bills for ratepayers are about evenly divided between generation and infrastructure costs, the actual hit on ratepayers by 2025 will be an increase of about 1.7%! That very small increase will have long been buried by the very large increases in the cost of natural gas between now and 2025. And finally, the "Arizona Billionaire", John Sperling, was a long-time and innovative Professor of education at San Jose State University. He is a Californian through and through, which is why he is using his money to try and support the betterment of California's economy and environment. He now lives in Arizona for his wife's health, but that move does not change where his allegiances lie. And his son, Peter Sperling, lives in Santa Barbara. So you see how distorted the opposition has become? Even the accusation that Prop. 7 will rule out the small installers (less than 30MW) has been shown to be wrong, most recently from an independent analysis by Attorney Steve Weissman of the UC Berkeley Center for Environmentl Law and Policy, who concluded "there are very convincing arguments to suggest the proponents intended to embrace renewable-energy facilities of all sizes...". What a pity to have Prop. 7 shot downs by all of these untruths and misreadings! California can indeed meet the goals of Prop. 7, and in so doing can lead the nation and the world toward a more rapid response to the greatly accelerating impacts and concerns of global warming and climate change, while giving California the lead also in the new lucrative energy industries for this century. Isn't it our responsibility to take advantage of this amazing opportunity? Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D. Oct. 23 2008 This distresses me so much to read the untruths regarding Prop. 76 that have become the stuff of “urban legends”, since they go from person to person, without a careful reading of Prop. 7!
It is absolutely not true, for example, that Prop. 7 reduces the opportunity for environmental review. For the large systems (above 30MW), which require significant investment capital, the carrot of a six-month reduced “fast track” is offered, but only after a preliminary three-month environmental review to determine if there are no significant environmental problems. If that preliminary review shows that there might be, the review process reverts to the present one of 12-18 months. So Prop. 7 doesn’t take away any environmental review opportunity, but adds an important possible carrot to attract the investment for the creation of tens of billions of dollars of new renewable energy industries and an estimated 370,000 new jobs.
Similarly, the statement that “it will force consumers to pay 10% above the market rate of power” is also patently untrue, and not even part of Prop. 7. What Prop. 7 does is to tell the utilities that, as they address their 2% renewable energy portfolio additions each year to their generation portfolios, they must in good faith be offered renewable energy contracts that cost no more than 10% above the base cost, which is measured off of the cost of natural gas. That means that by 2025, if all the new renewable energy contracts cost 10% more (which is ridiculous, since wind is already cheaper, not more expensive), then 30% of the utilities’ generation portfolios would have cost 10% more, adding only 3.3% to the cost to ratepayers. But since the bills for ratepayers are about evenly divided between generation and infrastructure costs, the actual hit on ratepayers by 2025 will be an increase of about 1.7%! That very small increase will have long been buried by the very large increases in the cost of natural gas between now and 2025.
And finally, the “Arizona Billionaire”, John Sperling, was a long-time and innovative Professor of education at San Jose State University. He is a Californian through and through, which is why he is using his money to try and support the betterment of California’s economy and environment. He now lives in Arizona for his wife’s health, but that move does not change where his allegiances lie. And his son, Peter Sperling, lives in Santa Barbara.
So you see how distorted the opposition has become? Even the accusation that Prop. 7 will rule out the small installers (less than 30MW) has been shown to be wrong, most recently from an independent analysis by Attorney Steve Weissman of the UC Berkeley Center for Environmentl Law and Policy, who concluded “there are very convincing arguments to suggest the proponents intended to embrace renewable-energy facilities of all sizes…”.
What a pity to have Prop. 7 shot downs by all of these untruths and misreadings! California can indeed meet the goals of Prop. 7, and in so doing can lead the nation and the world toward a more rapid response to the greatly accelerating impacts and concerns of global warming and climate change, while giving California the lead also in the new lucrative energy industries for this century. Isn’t it our responsibility to take advantage of this amazing opportunity?

Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D. Oct. 23 2008

]]> By: bernardo http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/10/22/california-will-vote-on-misleading-renewable-energy-initiatives/comment-page-1/#comment-11276 bernardo Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:20:55 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=1389#comment-11276 There's a blogger whose made strong criticism regarding the ethics and judgment of the elite enviros who've been criticizing Prop 7. http://www.confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/ As mentioned there, NRDC played an active role in designing and defending California's electricity restructuring -- we saw how well that worked out. Other major enviro opponents of 7 may not have had a direct hand in that fiasco but nonetheless allowed that disaster to take place in their back yard, deferring to EDF and NRDC's "expertise". As the anonynmous blogger by the handle of SolarCaliGirl notes, many of these groups are conflicted in terms of funding from and relationships with utility interests. The future of the planet may require carrying out a close examination of the mainstream enviros and pondering whether they should be entrusted to continue in their role as arbiters of enviromental policy. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and most of the blog community seems to be ignoring these issues. Regards, bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch dot org There’s a blogger whose made strong criticism regarding the ethics and judgment of the elite enviros who’ve been criticizing Prop 7.
http://www.confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/

As mentioned there, NRDC played an active role in designing and defending California’s electricity restructuring — we saw how well that worked out. Other major enviro opponents of 7 may not have had a direct hand in that fiasco but nonetheless allowed that disaster to take place in their back yard, deferring to EDF and NRDC’s “expertise”. As the anonynmous blogger by the handle of SolarCaliGirl notes, many of these groups are conflicted in terms of funding from and relationships with utility interests.

The future of the planet may require carrying out a close examination of the mainstream enviros and pondering whether they should be entrusted to continue in their role as arbiters of enviromental policy.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media and most of the blog community seems to be ignoring these issues.

Regards,

bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch dot org

]]>