Switchboard, from NRDC › Craig Noble's Blog

California's Prop 7 is Bad for Renewable Energy

2008-08-19T18:20:56Z

I’ve learned to bite my tongue around certain friends and relatives because not everyone appreciates my incessant talk about clean energy. I will exercise some restraint. Perhaps I’ll drop the jokes about my brother-in-law’s gas-guzzling SUV, which I’m told are wearing thin. But I will not shut up because the stakes are too high.

We need to create a clean energy economy. I don’t want to see our last best places drilled for oil or strip-mined for coal. Nor do I want to breathe polluted air. Nobody’s children deserve to live on a planet feverish from global warming. Besides, I get excited about being part of the solution here in California. In recent years we’ve passed two internationally-famous global warming laws – The Clean Cars Law (AB 1493) and The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), not to mention a lesser known yet hugely important law called The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard Act (SB 1368), which prevents utilities from entering into long-term contracts for electricity generated by dirty sources like coal.

California is where the action is, so even though my friends and family get a little nervous when I take a few steps toward my soapbox, they actually ask for my opinion when it comes time for them to approach the ballot box. I’m anticipating some potentially confusing conversations about one particular measure that’s going to be on the ballot this November. How do I explain that they should vote no on Proposition 7, The Solar and Clean Energy Act, which ostensibly requires California to increase its use of renewable energy? With a name like that, what could be wrong with it?

The list of reasons to vote against Prop 7 is long and complicated, but it boils down to this: California’s leading conservation groups and the renewable energy industry itself agree that Proposition 7 would actually make it harder to increase renewable energy development in California.

Here’s that long and complicated list of reasons to vote no on Prop 7:

Proposition 7 was put together by people who don’t know what they’re doing; they don’t understand California’s clean energy policies, laws and markets. Good intentions aren’t good enough, we need clean energy experts who know what they’re doing making energy policy.
Proposition 7 locks in place complex regulatory barriers that make it more difficult for California to achieve its renewable energy goals. We need to dismantle barriers to renewable energy, so we can accelerate efforts to create a clean electric grid.
Prop 7 could exclude smaller renewable energy providers from participating in California’s energy markets; it excludes renewable power facilities smaller than 30 megawatts from counting toward the measure’s new requirements. We need to make it easier, not harder, for clean energy companies to set up shop in California, bringing with them jobs and economic growth.
Prop 7 slashes penalties (by 80 percent) for utilities that fail to achieve the state’s renewable energy targets. There needs to be enforcement and consequences to ensure that energy providers comply with the law.
Prop 7 explicitly allows for a signed contract – not the actual construction of a renewable energy project or delivery of electricity from the project – to count as compliance, and creates several other huge new loopholes that could only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Promises aren’t good enough; we need real clean energy projects that are actually on the ground.
Prop 7 would limit environmental review of renewable energy projects. The siting of renewable energy and transmission projects should be an open, transparent process with ample opportunity for review and comment by concerned citizens, regulatory agencies, and federal, state and local governments.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about California energy policy, it’s that it’s really complicated. I don’t pretend to understand all the details, but I do know they matter. NRDC’s California energy experts all agree that each of the aforementioned details would make it harder, not easier, to increase the amount of renewable energy used in California. Taken together, these flaws would be an unmitigated disaster. Our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the California Solar Energy Industries Association all agree.

The pro-renewable energy vote this November is an emphatic No on Proposition 7.

California Will Win Its Global Warming Fight

2008-05-22T19:31:00Z

The lead editorial in today’s San Francisco Chronicle reminds me why I’m so proud to be a Californian. The editorial, “A Gust of Fresh Air,” asserts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to let California enforce its global warming clean cars law will eventually be reversed. The Chronicle got it right.

The newspaper was commenting on yesterday’s vote by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by California Sen. Barbara Boxer, to force the EPA to get out of California’s way. NRDC’s David Doniger told the Chronicle, “The long-term prospects for California to get the green light are good.” You can read Doniger’s statement here.

Under California’s 2002 clean cars law (AB 1493), automakers are supposed to sell vehicles that emit less heat-trapping pollution starting in the 2009 model year. That’s just around the corner. And while it’s been frustrating to see the automakers fight and lose – first in Sacramento and then in the courts – only to get what they wanted from the Bush administration, I’m still optimistic. I truly believe that California will eventually win and that its efforts will be remembered as the turning point in the fight against global warming.

While my colleagues back East have been fighting for nearly eight long years to prevent environmental rollbacks in Washington, we Californians have had the privilege of moving the ball forward. We’ve also shown that we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. The clean cars law was signed by a Democrat, Gov. Gray Davis, and California’s latest, greatest law, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed by a Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the face of our climate crisis, continued bipartisan cooperation has never been more important.

Today NRDC released a new report that should give pause to all the naysayers who don’t seem to care about rising sea levels, droughts, wildfires, drowning polar bears and children with asthma. The report finds that doing nothing on global warming comes with a huge price tag – $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. That should motivate those who only care about the kind of green that you put in your wallet.

I have no doubt that we will pass national legislation limiting global warming pollution. The question is will we act soon enough? Our best chance right now is the Climate Security Act in the U.S. Senate. The world our children and grandchildren inherit depends on whether our leaders in Washington act now and follow California’s example.

California's Parks Need Help

2008-05-20T18:36:39Z

I’ll gladly pay an extra buck or two for admission to California state parks, especially when the alternative is a big “CLOSED” sign at the entrance. That was my fear in January when Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed closing 48 state parks and beaches to balance the state budget. I was especially shocked to see my new favorite park – Henry Coe State Park – on the list of parks slated for closure.

Henry Coe is a hidden gem unknown to many Californians, including most people who I’ve questioned here in the Bay Area. It’s right here in our own back yard, located in the rugged hills just east of Morgan Hill near San Jose. At 87,000 acres, it’s the state’s second-biggest state park, and the biggest in Northern California. Only Anza Borrego State Park in the desert near San Diego is bigger.

I discovered Henry Coe on a family backpacking trip in spring 2006. We had so much fun that we did the same trip all over again the following year. My enduring memories include the coyote that came into camp and a magical stretch of trail with about a dozen creek crossings.

Our first day hike took us down to Coyote Creek for a lazy lunch at China Hole. We chose a different route back to camp, following the trail along Soda Springs Creek. The kids particularly enjoyed this hike because of all the stream crossings. I guess I’m just a big kid at heart because I got a real kick out of it too. The trail had about a dozen stream crossings in just about a mile. The crossings weren’t hard, but each was a mini-adventure, a chance to balance and hop from one slippery rock to the next. After the last rock hop, we paused to admire a deer skull that we found on the ground, passing it around, taking turns examining it.

When we resumed hiking the trail left the creek and veered upslope. The trees and shade got thinner. The sun’s heat seemed to grow to match our exertion. We were now on a steep savannah with views across the canyon to ridge after ridge of hills. We paused to catch our breath and take in the beauty. Finally we emerged at the top near our campsite in the Manzanita Point campground. Hot and sweaty, it was time to refill our water bottles at the Rabbit Creek spring.

After dinner I made one of those freeze-dried desserts that only taste good on camping trips. (Just add water, mix and add the crumbled topping.) My back was turned when the kids yelled, “Daddy, Daddy, look.” I turned around just in time to see this grayish dog-like animal. I think he (or she?) was just as surprised as we were. The coyote was trotting into camp when it stopped so abruptly it looked like it was slamming on the brakes. It quickly turned and hightailed out of there, all the while looking back at us over its shoulder.

Okay, I admit it – I’m a nature nut. Mountains, wilderness and wide open spaces are one of the main reasons this East Coast native first moved to California in 1989. But you don’t have to go backpacking to get your batteries recharged in the great outdoors.

California state parks are a natural treasure that belongs to all of us. Visiting them is a way to reconnect with the source of all life. They offer a respite from a world that can sometimes seem like it’s going mad. I don’t think we can put a price tag on all the benefits they offer us, but I suppose we could add up the cost of years of psychotherapy.

According to the California State Parks Foundation, the Schwarzenegger administration reversed its proposal to close 48 parks and beaches by “finding” $11.8 million in General Fund dollars. But unfortunately the parks aren’t out of the woods yet. Today the National Trust for Historic Preservation put the entire state park system – all 278 units – on its list of endangered landmarks. The reason is “years of chronic underfunding and deferred maintenance.” It turns out the bill for deferred maintenance has climbed to $1.2 billion. So even if our parks stay open, they’re in danger of crumbling apart.

California’s natural treasures are a main reason so many generations of people settled here in the first place. And they’re a major contributor to our quality of life. It’s time we started taking better care of them.