Craig Noble's Blog: Solving Global Warming tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/cnoble//56 2009-03-13T17:31:24Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.52 California's Prop 7 is Bad for Renewable Energy tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/cnoble//56.1646 2008-08-19T18:20:56Z 2009-03-13T17:31:24Z Craig Noble 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 tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/cnoble//56.1277 2008-05-22T19:31:00Z 2009-01-30T00:16:28Z Craig Noble 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.

]]>