CA Governor to Veto Bill with 33% RPS; Will Implement 33% RPS by Executive Order
13 September 2009
Sacramento Bee. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto two bills passed early Saturday morning by the California Legislature, which include a Renewable Power Standard (RPS) mandating that by 2020 at least 33% of all electrical power delivered to Californians come from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass or small-scale hydroelectric sources.
Schwarzenegger supports the 33% RPS.
But Schwarzenegger dislikes provisions that would limit the amount of energy utilities could purchase from out-of-California providers. The governor and GOP legislators have said the restriction could sharply increase energy rates.
“The poorly drafted, overly complex bills passed by the Legislature are protectionist schemes that will kill the solar industry in California and drive prices up like the failed energy deregulation of the late 1990s,” [Matt David, Schwarzenegger's communications director] said in a statement. “The bills as drafted will be vetoed by the governor. The governor will sign an executive order implementing the 33% renewable mandate administratively.”
Resources
California Senate Bill 14
Why don't they just passing a law mandating peace, love and happieness. And maybe giving a million dollars and a sack of gummy bears to everyone.
Posted by: ESabre | 13 September 2009 at 03:31 AM
If you followed California politics, you would know that was Senate Bill 11.
It was so popular that it had enough votes in the California Legislature to overcome the Governor's veto.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 13 September 2009 at 08:36 PM
More daydreaming, posturing and rank stupidity from the California loons in tne legislature. Their renwables barely make 1-2% of their electrical energy from their so-called renewables.
Rain, falling to the ground, running into rivers and piling up behind damns isn't renewable, according to these nut jobs. And falling water creating hydro-electricity doesn't count as renewable, according to the loons.
By 2020,they will be lucky to have doubled their warped ideas of renewables, to 3-4% and no where near 33%.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 13 September 2009 at 11:10 PM
If CO2 is that much of a problem, why don't Californians support nuclear power? It may not be "renewable", but it is still CO2-free.
I don't think the people of California are living in the real world.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 14 September 2009 at 02:51 AM
I'm glad one state is finally make great strides in bringing renewables firmly into the mix. "Be the change you wish to see in the world".
There are people commenting above who don't have an engineering or resource understanding of renewables, and so unfortunately have nothing to fall back on but name calling.
Posted by: Will S | 14 September 2009 at 06:21 AM
California already makes 13% of it's electricity from renewables, with 75% of RPS capacity still in developement. Project cancellation rate is only 7%.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm
Great site. Links up to the projects. Includes legislative reports.
It's 2010 goals were to reach 20% but it some projects are delayed.
The 2007 California Solar Initiative is ontrack though for putting 3000MW of solar on buildings' roofs in CA though.
33% is reachable goal for Ca.
Posted by: aym | 14 September 2009 at 10:50 AM
I don't know if the Governor or the Legislature is correct...but I do believe California has massive renewable potential. California can not do much to increase hydroelectric, because there are only so many large rivers at elevation, and they're mostly already developed.
California can lead on solar, show on wind, place on geothermal, and experiment with algal liquid fuels.
Anybody have an opinion about Nanosolar's municipal power plants concept (10 acres next to a city or town, so no high voltage lines and far fewer permits, faster development times)? http://www.nanosolar.com/company/blog#46
It seems like the only downside is that the land may not be as cheap, but most other costs would be less, and importantly, it could come on line years sooner.
They suggest each acre of municipal solar plant could power about 100 homes. If you figure the typical home in a housing tract is about 1/4 acre, that means you only need 4-5% of the land in a housing tract to be municipal solar field to be somewhat energy self-sufficient. That seems very doable.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 14 September 2009 at 12:39 PM
The Terminator of the California economy is clearly following its(his) mandate. What he is doing is clearly a seccession of California from the United States and its Constitution which does not allow restrictions or duties on imports. He cannot even pay the state employess but has and is going to make the state government pay a lot more for electricity. He will also make the residents pay a lot more for power.
So called renewable electricty is the most expensive electricity on the face of the earth except for store bought batteries. The Terminator should have to insist that 33% of all electric batteries in the state have only renewable energy in them.
He should now keep his word to the solar industry lobbyists and religionists and cut the power lines from Hoover Dam into California; it is large scale hydro. Las Vegas would like all of the cheap power and could probably use it all and shut down one or more coal fired power plants. He can cut the lines to California from the Columbia river because they are also large scale hydro and religeously heretical. Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho can shut down a few coalfired power plants and use the cheap hydro.
Terminator should also consider banning light bulbs of all types in favor of "Coleman" or "Petromax" type lanterns as some other religions have done. Coleman lanterns were actually invented later than electric lights and are more modern. Then Californians would not have to carry hot lighbulbs from room to room when they wanted light in a different room.
If California shows in this way that it is going to violate the constitution for its anti CO2 religion, then power generators owned by the US government and its citizens should terminate the subsidy of this particular belief system, other wise known as the CO2FirstDayCatholicScientists and their Pope Terminator the First. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 14 September 2009 at 06:20 PM
Being from Austria, the Terminator will not likely know the story of Canute and the tide. It is strange that with all of the blacks in California the Terminator, "Bl**kNi***r", has not been asked to change his name.
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 14 September 2009 at 06:29 PM
The impact of renewables would not be as extreme on infrastructure. According to the CUPC, the cost will go up slightly until around 2021, then it fall will a net result that the state would save money. It's only at extremely high levels where storage infrastructure is needed that renewable costs are magnified.
This is very simily to the conclusions of the IEA in a 2008 report to see what impacts renewable worldwide would do.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ETP2008SUM.pdf
It should be noted that Iowa gets 15% of its electricity from wind without noticable rate hikes and Maine gets 30% from renewables.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=ME
Posted by: aym | 16 September 2009 at 01:54 PM