California Assembly OKs 33% renewable energy req. by 2020

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-energy-20110330,0,818402.story

Current law requires utilities to produce 20% renewable energy (which they have not met). This measure requires utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020. The bill now heads to Gov Jerry Brown desk for signing.

Link to actual bill:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sbx1_2&sess=CUR&house=B&author=simitian

Expect to see a lot more green electrons powering your Leaf in the future!

drees said:

Current law requires utilities to produce 20% renewable energy (which they have not met). This measure requires utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020. The bill now heads to Gov Jerry Brown desk for signing.

Click to expand...

PG&E claims to already be over 50% CO2 free electrical energy. A PG&E engineer that I spoke with recently claims that large hydro plants and home solar have been excluded from their calculations to incentivize them to invest in more renewable energy sources.

drees said:

Current law requires utilities to produce 20% renewable energy (which they have not met).

Click to expand...

Some have, some haven't. LA DWP met the goal by getting to 19.7% for 2010. Figures are rounded to the nearest percent.

I also expect that we'll see a corresponding increase in electricity costs... I'll be long gone from California by then though...

drees said:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-energy-20110330,0,818402.story

Current law requires utilities to produce 20% renewable energy (which they have not met). This measure requires utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020. The bill now heads to Gov Jerry Brown desk for signing.

Click to expand...

JimK said:

PG&E claims to already be over 50% CO2 free electrical energy. A PG&E engineer that I spoke with recently claims that large hydro plants and home solar have been excluded from their calculations to incentivize them to invest in more renewable energy sources.

Click to expand...

Yes - if you read the bill, hydro is only included if it doesn't alter the ecosystem significantly (large scale dams are out - run-of-the-river hydro is in). Nuclear also isn't counted as renewable.

mogur said:

I also expect that we'll see a corresponding increase in electricity costs...

Click to expand...

Yes, renewable energy is currently more expensive than non-renewable energy. That's because externalities of non-renewables are not accounted for. That said, studies have shown only a modest 7% increase in costs. I will happily pay.

mogur said:

I'll be long gone from California by then though...

Click to expand...

And your electricity will very likely be dirtier, too.

drees said:

Yes - if you read the bill, hydro is only included if it doesn't alter the ecosystem significantly (large scale dams are out - run-of-the-river hydro is in). Nuclear also isn't counted as renewable.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I've found that restriction puzzling. Yes, new large hydro does alter the ecosystem, but why should that mean they can't count the power they are generating from existing dams? If we knocked those dams out, that would also alter the ecosystem!

Ray