RPS. Never have three seemingly innocuous letters stirred so much
passionate debate and consumed so much legislative time in recent
years. And for good reason.
The future energy infrastructure of our
state over the next decade will largely be shaped by the decisions that
could result this year from the debate swirling around California’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard.
I am very supportive of efforts to increase our state’s reliance on
renewable energy, but I am also very aware just how difficult that task
is to accomplish. After all we have not even reached the state’s
original goal of 20% by 2010. Simply put, changing the culture of our
energy delivery system is extremely complicated. Many critical issues
must be fleshed out in a precise manner so that in the end we can move
California in what I believe is the appropriate direction without
harming ratepayers.
In my opinion there are several issues of paramount importance that
need to be addressed to ensure the success of an increased RPS mandate
for both ratepayers and energy providers. If these issues can be dealt
with successfully I, likely along with other members, could support an
increase in the RPS to 33%. The issues of importance to me are as
follows:
- In-State
vs. Out-of-State: The broader the pool of resources available, the
better it is for the ratepayers. It will result in greater
competition, resulting in lower costs. SB 722’s current requirement
that 75% of renewable energy come from in-state unnecessarily
constrains providers and limits potential private sector involvement.
The author and supporters should consider a lower, more manageable
number, which will allow for broader competition that in turn will keep
prices competitive. - Transmission:
We all understand that building the necessary infrastructure to achieve
a 33% RPS is very challenging. Delays that are beyond the control of
utilities continue to persist, slowing down efforts to reach even the
current 20% mandate. Much of the delays stem from the fact that it is
exceedingly difficult to build both renewable projects as well as the
transmission lines needed to take the clean energy to the grid. To be
successful, SB 722 needs to make an effort to remove or streamline
legal/environmental review barriers to constructing these important
projects. - Compliance:
While SB 722 contains provisions that allow utilities to take their
case before the PUC, I believe that the current provisions allow the
Commission too much latitude in granting "compliance off-ramps." The
bill needs to be tightened up to instill greater certainty that
utilities will not be held liable for these occurrences. - Target
Dates: Target dates are necessary to measure the success of achieving
33% by 2020. While I voted against SB 14 last year I did appreciate
that it took a more real-world approach, recognizing the ups and downs
of the renewable market. I would like to make certain that SB 722
approaches this issue in a similar manner that still requires utilities
to maintain the appropriate percentage of renewables between each
target date.
In my opinion these issues are critical to enacting a successful plan
to attain a 33% RPS by 2020. Beyond these main issues I believe there
should be a discussion about whether language contained in SB 14
relating to out-of-country run-of-river hydro resources should be
included into SB 722. That language merely required a study without
committing the state to actually utilizing these resources, and as Vice
Chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee last year I
supported this provision.
This could easily be incorporated back into
SB 722, thereby greatly enhancing our overall strategy in reaching our
stated goals.
I believe the issues I have raised herein are extremely important but
not unreasonable and should be considered for adoption into SB 722. I
want to support increased usage of green energy resources, and I would
like to be able to cast a vote for SB 722, but I simply cannot in its
current version.