Email

Print

July 1, 2010

California reaches fork in road on green targets

State Senator Joe Simitian is working to safeguard California's 33% by 2020 renewable energy target

California is taking steps to write its 33% renewable energy target into state law, but voters could decide later this year to suspend state limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

A new bill from state senator Joe Simitian requires private and public utilities to source a third of their electricity supplies from renewable energy projects by 2020.

The target has already been set by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s executive order last year, but state lawmakers want the legal weight of a state law behind the requirement. At present, a future Governor could decide to revoke the 33% renewable energy target.

Senate Bill 722 was passed last week by the Assembly and Commerce Committee by nine votes to two.

Senator Simitian said reaching for a higher renewable energy target would improve air quality, tackle climate change and improve the security of California’s energy supplies.

He also stressed that the measure would create jobs, and protect electricity customers by diversifying electricity supplies.

“Renewable energy is a win-win-win for California,” said Sen. Simitian. “It will create jobs, protect our environment, and protect us from spiking energy costs. But to make that happen, we need to set the 33% number into law.”

Laura Wisland, an energy analyst with the lobby group Union of Concerned Scientists said: “The parties understand that a renewable energy mandate in statute is a superior solution because an executive order—no matter how well intentioned—could easily be undone by a future governor ”

Governor

Last year’s effort by Sen. Simitian was passed by both Houses of California’s legislature, but then vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The state senator for California’s 11th district said he was working with the Governor to try to get SB 722 onto the statute books.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger said last week he could not sign the bill as it currently stands.

He said it needed measures in place to streamline the permitting and siting process for renewable energy projects and transmission projects before he could enact a law confirming his own executive order requiring the 33% target.

Gov Schwarzenegger said: “I vetoed SB 14 last year because of the negative impact it would have had on California’s energy markets and ratepayers. However, while SB 722 makes progress in addressing those concerns, there are still a number of critical issues that must be addressed before I can sign this bill.”

Greenhouse emissions

Meanwhile, oil lobbyists and anti-tax groups are seeking to suspend state laws setting limits on companies emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The California Jobs Initiative, as it is being called, has been included among November’s ballot, giving voters the chance to hold off on efforts to reduce climate change emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The lobbyists behind the attempt, including out-of-state oil companies like Valero and Tesoro, say the expected cap-and-trade scheme on emissions should be delayed until the economy picks up.

But, those supporting a curb on emissions say it will actually create jobs and economic opportunities, as well as protecting the state from rises in fossil fuel prices.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association cited a study from the California Business Roundtable, which counts oil company Chevron and power utilities Edison International and PG&E Corp as members, which claimed that cutting carbon emissions would see a $182.6 billion dent in California’s output – “the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs”.

The Association made the curious assertion that since California cannot fight climate change alone, postponing climate legislation in the state “would not have an adverse impact on climate change”.

Jon Coupal, president of the tax group, said: “The California Jobs Initiative will leave our state’s existing air and water quality laws intact while protecting jobs and the economy from billions in AB 32 costs that won’t make a difference in global warming.”