Posted on 04/03/2011 9:18:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Jerry Brown is expected in coming days to sign a bill requiring that 33 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2020, much more than the present requirement of 20 percent. This is by far the most ambitious plan of any state, spurred by a determination to reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming and to stop sending billions of dollars each year to oil-producing nations with troubling agendas.
But on two fronts, there is a quality of make-believe to the legislation.
For starters, given the extent of opposition to renewable-energy projects, California was going to struggle to meet the 20 percent requirement by 2020, much less a 33 percent standard.
Who are the most powerful opponents? As has been widely reported in the state and national media, it’s members of the same environmental movement that has led the fight for cleaner energy.
“NIMBY activism has blocked more renewable projects than coal-fired power plants by organizing local opposition, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits and using other long delay mechanisms, effectively bleeding projects dry of their financing,” concluded a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report on the obstacles facing green-energy firms, which are often thwarted despite having governmental support and billions of venture capital.
This problem is amply evident in our own backyard with the many attempts to block solar and wind projects in Southern California deserts.
The air of make-believe surrounding the legislation continues with the never-ending attempts to depict a forced shift to cleaner but much costlier energy as a big boon to the larger California economy.
Independent experts hired to evaluate the California Air Resources Board’s upbeat study of the effects of mandating costlier power ridiculed this claim. Indirectly, at least, so did President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu. He testified to Congress that the U.S. would be at a competitive disadvantage with its economic rivals if it shifted unilaterally to cleaner but costlier energy.
This isn’t rocket science. Energy costs are a key component of many industries, especially manufacturing. Yet even with California’s unemployment at 12 percent for the past year and a half, state leaders want to place a unique new burden on our economy.
Which brings us to an odd twist related to this legislation’s first make-believe element: If green activists prevent construction of renewable-energy plants in California, it may keep energy costs down.
This editorial page thinks there needs to be concerted global action on climate change. We hope that green technology born and made in California helps this global effort. We think most Californians agree with us.
But that doesn’t mean we should have a state energy policy that ignores the powerful green opposition to green goals and Chu’s warning. It’s time for Brown and the Legislature to get real.
Socialist Utopia
in debt up to its collective neck
BeZerkeley Powered
Lots of “mandates” in California.. not that kind.. that’s another thread.
You know, somebody should start tracing the money that is behind these environmental mandates. I’m betting somebody is benefitting greatly from unworkable laws like this.
Talk about the consequences of this “pie in the sky” insanity will have no effect whatsoever.
These people have to experience and get hit right between the eyes by this lunacy.
The “real world” has been repealed in the Socialist Republik of Kalifornicate.
Jerry Brown - “I’ll see your reality, and substitute my own....call”
I’m all for CA continuing its suicidal plunge into Turd World status just so the rest of America can see what will happen to the rest of the country.
Already in a hole, they just keep digging.
Hell, why didn’t Brown just mandate 100% come from renewables? It’s about as achievable as this insanity.
It will undoubtedly increase energy prices and will likely accelerate the movement of businesses out of state.
“somebody is benefiting greatly”
A “smart” lawyer would setup a strawman to apply for a huge government grant for an energy project. If it all works to “plan”, the greens would sue, and the “smart” lawyer would siphon off millions in grant money as fees to defend the company.
It’s perfect. The “smart” lawyer gets all the cash, the “greens” win their day in court, and not one bit of energy is produced.
Oh brother.
Those politicians in CA really know how to constantly step in it.
They keep making matters/economy worse with every stroke of the pen.
Some problems do come up with this plan. Can’t build large solar arrays in the desert as it disrupts desert tortoise habitat. Can’t build transmission lines from remote wind and solar generating sites as it damages sensitive environmental areas. Can’t build hydro power generating dams as it impacts the salmon, steelhead and delta smelt populations. Other then that the plan should work.
On their own, these energy sources could not compete in the open market; so by adding insult to injury, not only do we pay more “up front” in taxes, we will have to pay more for the energy produced. Once the cost of energy exceeds 30% of the my fixed retirement income, I'll have to resort to other forms of energy to stay warm; there's a nice forested park right across the street, and I have a great chainsaw. Talk about air pollution!
Yes sunny California could meet this goal if it were not for the obstacles the greenies are always throwing up. There is so much solar potential in the mojave desert but it won’t be allowed.
In this story we saw the investor-owned utilities will be ready in 2012. Oddly that story doesn't say how close the municipal utilities are to compliance.
Don't get me wrong. The 33% goal in eight years, given the regulatory fiasco that is CA, is nothing short of insanity.
The (laughable) alternative, I suppose, is to "buy" renewable energy from out of state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.