California Gets Aggressive about Renewable Energy

A related news break. The mice in California have just passed a law requiring all cats to wear bells. They have yet to determine who has the responsibility to tell the cats...

Recently, several potential solar power projects in California have been canceled or sold due to legal battles over environmental impact, encroaching on Tribal Lands, water use issues, and possibly others. Other projects have been delayed indefinitely. It sounds to me like there is a great separation of powers between the California legislature and the California judicial system...

Yes, CW--A good friend, who was the main financial person(Since retired), for the DWP's COAL FIRED POWER PLANT---(WHAT?? California coal fired??)--Yep--Only it is in NEVADA!!!...Spilled the beans to me on how many of the GREEN Projects that have been brought on line, to satisfy the Green Agenda, and they are all Financial boondoogles--The Barstow solar project, was a failure, and was allowed to stay , for years, as a PR caper, although it bled red ink. The large windmill projects in Central and Northern California have been cancelled because the Greenies don't like the looks, and every now and then , a bird gets ingested (Does Roadkill ring a bell? Have we stopped cars and trucks from driving?) Thew new proposed Wave Powered Project, off of San Onofre (Because of the main transmission lines proximity), has run into an environmental roadblock, even though it is a private enterprise. The mandate is so biased as not have any agenda than a Political one. If we need to reduce whatever we need to reduce, the go to 3rd Generation Nuke plants , for the next 50 years, and that will buy us enough time get our act together for the next century, or until an Einstein or Telsa comes along to help us out of the morass. My 11 cents--

why can't the lawmakers make a rule that every consumer has to reduce its power bill by 20% in next two years ,otherwise they will be charged double the rates ?? I think that is much easier to achieve.

What if you have a tract home, in California, built in the REDI-ELECTRIC age, with radiant heating, your home value is hitting bottom, you can't sell it, or your are underwater on your mortgage, or you don't have a job anymore, and some STUPID Politician gets a bill passed that says you have to do this or that??? What are you thinking about? There is a ton of energy out there. Go out and use it!! Pass a law, create a criminal--The problem is not reducing power usage, it is to CREATE more Power--To utilize what we have to CREATE, or take advantage of what power we have-- Look at he earthquake and Tsunami in Japan--Was that caused by TOO LITTLE POWER??Try telling Einstein to reduce power consumption.

Simply...lawmakers design laws to benefit special interest groups and sell that plan to the people as something in their best interests. The solar crowd and people that bought land in windy areas are throwing a party with this laws passage. The law mandates more alternative energy, it doesn't mandate controlling costs. The rate payers will suffer and the special interest groups will enjoy a bonanza.

That is virtually what is happening in NSW Australia, they are raising the prices as fast as they can go so customers are using less electricity.

However previous state government has stolen so much of the profits from the electricity suppliers over the years that they have not a lot of funds to upgrade the network which is needed badly, the higher prices will have to be used for this whereas the profits we should have had could have been used to convert coal fired stations to gas , We are way behind the eight ball in reducing our carbon footprint and no nuclear stations in sight.

However our commonwealth government [ an oxymoron if ever I saw one ] is now going to bring on a carbon tax this will certainly reduce our power consumption when large company's go overseas and small business quits due to costs.

What good that will do the country in the long term I do not know, I had better buy a cycle to get around as I do not have enough grass to feed a horse.

You may also have to get a job in another country.

When would that law take effect ... So I can raise my usage now, so that when it takes effect, I can return to my usual affairs ........

Technology is not only there for harnessing renew-ables, as the State of California is looking for by a Law. But technology has also been developed to use energy efficient systems/power consuming appliances, lighting etc. California with its progressive laws has motivated the world over last 3 decades. One can say I have money and I am not bothered to reduce power usage. One can also say , I am broke and I do not have money to upgrade. But in between these two extreme end there are many who can surely do something ,if the Law for lower consumption level is also there. Law just makes people aware that , they can also do something or get penalized. It actually motivates people to think and do. One can argue why a law to motivate ! But sometimes laws are necessary to realign our brain cells for more positive thinking. The one who reduces does not pay penalty and one who does not, pays more for not doing what the Law expects.

When a Government clutters up the law books with laws that are ill-conceived and impossible to enforce, one creates within the populace a general scoff-law attitude. If you have enough inane laws registered within your community, people are not going to pick and chose which laws they want to obey, but, rather, will consider the Government ineffective and weak, and therefore have no motivation to obey ANY law.

Exactamundo.

A law that penalizes you ... for not being able to do ... something ... that you are not able to do ...

There will be a 20% tax increase on anyone not able to fly in space ... but I can fly in space you say? ... I say, then prove it. The cost to prove it or use it will be more than the tax ... yeah!!! tax man wins!

Reiterates ... any such law is DUMB.

Surely this is an April Fool joke, but it raises an important point. Why not just command us all to flap our arms and fly, or to stop breathing CO2 into the atmosphere? Mandates with no technology to accomplish them can't work.

Is nuclear renewable?

Until the sun consumes the earth? ... then yes ... it is ... renewable.

There were beginnings & there are ends ... and we are caught up in the middles.

It is not renewable, though i am sure the nuclear proponents would like it classified as such. it requires a limited resource that is imported from outside the US, uranium (or thorium) bearing minerals. Nuclear power, is just a modern version of petroleum in that respect. They used to think at the turn of the 1900's that oil was unlimited. Nuclear also requires mining in places like Africa, if you think the middle east is a quagmire, try the Congo. It might just be a very slowly depleted resource currently.

Go to the World Nuclear Association website, and they are mentioning developing other combinations of fuel, one using Beryllium, that are supposed to be much safer, and more efficient. Lots of things going on in this field. Like using Bio-Fuels, from algae, in cars that also run on oil. Focus on creation of energy, not the stopping of energy.

Still not renewable, just another fuel source. Though I would not have considered beryllium as a fuel source. Eventually you can deplete the available resource for radionuclides from minerals. Bio fuels on the other hand is a cyclic process, we burn them, release CO2, plants (algae) recover the CO2 through photosynthesis into biofuel precursors, and we process them into biofuels. Biofuels is dependent on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and sunlight for the energy input. So there is a upper limit to how rapidly and how much volume can be produced, but no depletion of the resources, as all nutrients are returned.

Something interesting i heard on the news last night on the subject of nuclear power, i found disturbing. Nuclear power providers are not required to provide their own insurance against disasters, but rather the government has to cover them, because the cost of insurance from a private insurer would make the overhead prohibitive against development by private energy companies. Made me wonder how many other hidden costs were deferred off onto the public taxes to support nuclear power development. Maybe it isn't as cost effective as some would like us to believe. It would be nice to have some disclosure on the complete cost, including contigency and emergency costs, closure cost, etc. for facilities, (much like a landfill has to do). (All facilities eventually have to close someday.)

I only mention the development in Nuclear as a stopgap for buying time until newer , financially competitive energy sources come on line. The savings in pollution from reduction of coal emissions etc would more than offset the use of Nuclear. It was explained to me in this fashion. Nuclear is a likened to a guillotine, in which disaster can come in one fell swoop, but only if the rope holding it up is not strong enough, or is tampered with. Burning coal is like sticking your head in a "Slightly cloudy" bag, and breathing in , day and night, for 40 years , before the final outcome. I think we ought to be designing better ropes.. There is an algae project that uses seawater algae as a source, but then again, you are still "burning"... My 2 cents..

Of course they are also recovering the CO2 that are exhausted from the burning process, recycling it. I think the main driver to building a better rope is to make companies liable for that risk if the rope fails. We all know they could not afford a sudden cost incurment for a disaster, and no corporation is ever going to keep sufficient reserves on hand for such situations (always assuming the best scenarios in order to release financial reserves to show profitability). Thus we should require they maintain a insurance policy for cost incured from potential disaster, or have a bond set aside for such an event in sufficient valuation to cover damages for some radius around the plant based on the previous worst historical disasters. If there was some risk imposed on the companies, I am guessing that rope wiould be much more secure.

Totally agree--But, then again, if the Government (us), is on the hook for the liability, shouldn.t the Government be running and profiting from the Utility? I do no not like the thought of Government intervention in anything that private enterprise can do better and more efficiently, but at some point in time , scale does play a part in the overall picture (think of a private company building the entire Interstate Highway system) etc. Some interesting points to ponder--Love to hear them all--Thank you!

Vast difference between something where you build a facility and complete the task versus something where you maintain the faciility and the danger just accrues over time as the facility ages. In private businesses that have components oriented to facilities maintenance, minimization of maintenance costs is the standard of business to increase profitability. Thus, at some level profits are competing against public welfare and safety. Construction under proper inspection doesn't have quite the same issue, though some contractors will try to cut corners if they aren't watched. but with proper inspection the project can be completed. Longer the project the more problems accrue in the construction and operation process, maintaining facilities is a very long project. Records get lost, people use little tricks to hold things together and compensate for lack of budget at the time or lack of sufficient knowledge. Over time as all these little deficiencies compile up, you hit a critical point during some minor failure and the whole system fails disastrously. Private industry is a risky proposition with very long term high threat ventures, as all they have are concerns for their own liability and operations cost affecting their profits, unless therer are substantial governemnt controls and regulations and the decision-makers in such comapnies have some personal liability. I would suggest that the CEOs of companies be held privately financially responsible for some portion of the risk for such ventures, or at least those who can be determined to have been in charge when the issues that lead to or facilitated the failure or some degree of the increase in failure occurred. If a CEO has to be insured, much like a Doctor and can be held directly culpable, maybe then things would be evaluted more fully for long term risk/liability versus short term profitability. I was venture to guess that nuclear power would be quite safe then, if the CEO of the energy company operating the plants could be imprisoned and/or sued.

I wonder where they plan on getting the money to pay for it?

Hoping to set a trend? I can't imagine.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/06/EDEI1H57IL.DTL

What does the link have to do with the thread?

Whenever laws like this are enacted, they end up costing money............lots of it.

Unless California has gained access to the printing of money, I don't believe they have the cash to implement this legislation. As nice as things like this sound, everything that has been done to date in wind, solar, etc., has been supplemented in one way or the other, by government.

I provided the link to back up my statement that they can't afford this.

If they think they can attract renewable energy companies to the state, why pass a law? Just throw out the welcome mat.

As RCE explained if it costs any money, it won't be for 20 years

Basically a symbolic gesture, it could even be considered a symbolic welcome mat

Just another one of those actions politicans take when they want to appear decisive, without actually doing anything of substance

Exactly.

Although, typically, when states want to draw in new businesses, there is money involved somewhere.......big tax breaks, etc. It's still money.

Sad part is, a lot of states that have been handing out these huge tax incentives to companies are finding that once the tax breaks expire, the companies simply pack up and move. The states never get to see the long term benefit that they envisioned when making the deals.

I wanted to ask the same question. I thought I heard a few months back that California was thinking of filing for bankruptcy.

I am not sure about the bankruptcy scam. There is still a huge economy in California. I heard the Bay Area is about 9% unemployment, and complaining that it isn't where is was in 2006. Bankruptcy is a means to break union contracts and pension plans, and solve some debts (something the previous republican administration might have considered). Currently, they have a huge liability under the public workers pension plan. They pay between 2.5% and 3% of a public workers highest paid year of employment times the number of years employed. With some of the unskilled and semi-skilled unionized labor wage escalations during the first part of the 2000's, they may not have the capacity to cover the PERs cost. The State and numerous Cities are suffering from this, since PERS allows fire and police to retire at 50 and all others at 55. thus for a unskilled law enfocement employee (and there are a lot fo those) who retires at 50, started at maybe 19 or 20, he has 30 years in at 2.5% (for the smaller poorer cities) he receives 75% of his highest paid years earnings for life (another 30 years). With the new government, it is unlikely they will seek to curtail union benefits, as Gerry Brown is 1970's democrat and primarily in office because of union support from Law Enforcement Unions (who were getting laid off like crazy last year) and the Teachers Unions (and a general distaste for some of the perceived corrupt CEO traits of Meg Whitman who tried to buy the office). So I am sure he will seek any other means except bankruptcy, because the last governor to negotiate a overly favorable union contract that receive public attention got recalled, and bankruptcy would break those union contracts requiring renegotiations. It is easier to maintain the existing contracts then to have to renegotiate them all at once and risk a recall (and Californian's would recall him if he was to friendly with the unions, just ask Gray Davis about the Prison Guards contract).

Isn't this the same Jerry Brown, who as Governor in 1976, signed into law the Right To Collective Bargaining for Public Employees? Also, I have heard that a disproportionate amount of Fire Fighters and Police Officers retire with a Disability Claim, that allows then not only extra monies, but shields half of their Retirement benefits from taxation...Have a friend who is collecting 3 different Pensions, having been the City Manager of 3 different municipalities, over the course of 35 years....

Yes, Jerry Brown is a strong union supporter, and this is why he would not consider bankruptcy for California as it would force a renegotiation of contracts, and Gray Davis got thrown out of office for just one contract he screwed up in favor of his union supporters.

it is real common for Police Officers to retire from one City at 50 and go to work for another, collecting multiple retirement benefits. Though i did hear of one who was a Police Lt in LA and went to work for a small City as a Chief, and they were fighting over the double pensioning thing. Also, there are the guys who work for years in one safe and secure job location, then for the last year take a position for more pay in a less desirable location, but being of higher rank they never see the field work in that location and sit in a office for a year to get a higher PERs rating. Also, seen firemen retire and have some city create some public works inspection job for them to work under after retirement, for an extra retirement. Under PERs you can in theory earn more on 20 years retirement than you earned during a 30 year career, if you get one year in the right job or do like the guys in Bell, CA did and give yourself huge raises right before retiring. All the municipal worker I know are strongly in favor of reform of PERs, but definitely after they retire.

I hadn't really realized how the system could be gamed, and how much it is costing, until I saw a segment on 60 Minutes where they interviewed a retired police officer from Syracuse, NY. He retired at 45 years old with an annual pension of $125,000 per year for life plus health insurance. I don't remember all of the details, but there was some legal loophole, where they could bulk up on overtime for several years before retiring and push the pension payments way up.

Yes, if it is like PERs it is based on the highest single years pay soemtime before retirement. It is the dirty little secret of the Unions, they cry out for public support but then negotiate in secrete with democrats for huge pensions.

UC berkeley was supposed to conduct a study comparing public workers payscales to private industry. However, when they decided to report the results they reported only that those public workers with advanced degrees were earning less than similar workers in private industry. The unions have referenced this study a number of times, but unions don't typically represent people with advanced degrees (there are a few teachers, but credentialling is not a advanced degree as i Understood the study), so it is irrelevent with regard to their members. They imply the study was for all public workers, but the findings were limited. I suspect the finding were limited because the general findings may not have presented the kind of results those funding the study wanted to hear. Basically the public workers with Ms and PhDs working for regulatory agencies earn less than private industry, it would be nice to see how the others fare particularly laborers.

That sounds like it. I picked up a little OT bug. Let me get back on topic.

Does anyone know of a case, (in the US), where government mandated energy plans have been a success?

An on topic article.

Hoover Dam, amongst a few...Finished in 3 years...

Sort of, the government actually built that, and the energy source was already there.

This explains a lot. From the short article in the WSJ.

The U.S.'s largest energy consumer is increasing its renewable portfolio standards and continues to pursue a cap-and-trade program that would put a price on carbon after similar initiatives to do so in Congress have flatlined.

Hard not to wonder if it's actually about renewables, or cap & trade, followed by fines for noncompliance.

Who knows, Gerry Brown and Gavin Newsome are not exactly financial guys, they are more of the fluffy policy guys. I am sure they are hoping some momentum will be developed from this policy that will drive advancement in alternative energy to the point it becomes a cost effective solution within that time frame. Plus the timeline is almost 20 years out, so it doesn't matter to anyone in Sacramento, most of them won't be in office and 20 years. So it is basically just a broad stroke statement they themselves don't ever have to actually back up.

There are a lot of new green energy projects being built in California though. There is one Solar Farm getting ready to start construction in Southern Cal in the next few months, and another in the Central Valley to start construction with in the year. Plus there are some new permits from the State for wind power expansions, one expansion I believe is supposed to occur the the wind farms down in Tehachapi (I doubt the will ever increase the ones by Livermore too many Bay area people do not like the look and oppose the perceive risk to birds). Also, there is a private geothermal deep well investigation occurring in the southwest portion of the Central Valley. These are the ones I have heard of, I am sure there are more. The only ones that do't have a future in the Western US are new hydropower dams, due to the habitat destruction for Steelhead Trout and Salmon.