GreenTechMedia reports:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed an executive order that would speed up renewable energy development and require 33 percent of utilities' electrical power to come from renewable sources by 2030.
The governor is aiming to use Executive Order S-14-08 to compel two state agencies, the California Energy Commission and the Department of Fish and Game, to work more closely on dealing with conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmentalists over building power plants and transmission lines (see California Lukewarm to Sunrise Powerlink).
This executive order will maintain California's dual leadership in the renewable power and energy efficiency.
As California goes, so goes the nation. Under Obama, you can expect a much stronger federal renewable portfolio standard and expedited transmission line siting and permitting.
If the Obama administration can successfully translate the best policies from California and other states, then we need never build another traditional coal plant again.
Kudos to Arnold. He would indeed make a very capable secretary of energy.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Threaded
greentiger Posted 7:59 am
18 Nov 2008
I'm hoping Mr. Romm, given his former role, uses this time of cabinet-picking intrigue to give us the low-down on what they do over there in the DOE.
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 11:27 am
18 Nov 2008
Schwarzenegger has been promoting a California cap-and-trade system, whose fundamental policy objective is to achieve least-cost emission reductions. The California Air Resources Board has estimated that the incremental cost of going to a 33% RPS (from the existing 20% mandate) would be $133/MT. The trading price for the cap-and-trade portion of California's AB 32 legislation is projected to be $10/MT, which means that utilities will (according to economic projections) be compelled to incur marginal costs of $133/MT while alternative, GHG-equivalent compliance options are available for around $10/MT. (SEE CARB's Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32.) How can the cost be justified?
CARB asserts that there are "energy diversity" benefits that justify the $133/MT cost. But while petroleum dependence in the transportation sector is also an issue of energy diversity, CARB is not imposing similar costs on transportation. (In fact, the proposed AB 32 regulations for passenger vehicles would yield projected net savings of $262/MT.) So how can you justify $133/MT when the trading system is yielding emission reductions for $10/MT and transportation is getting $262/MT savings?
There's another even more fundamental problem:
If if the benefits of a 33% RPS (including "energy diversity") would justify the $133/MT cost, then those benefits would justify an even higher RPS if costs turn out to be much lower, as will very likely be the case. (Conversely, the 33% target would probably not be justified if costs turn out to be $1000/MT.) So a fixed target, like 33%, only makes sense if we don't care about costs. But we evidently do care about costs; otherwise the target would be 100%.
I'm totally confused. Can someone please explain this to me?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:34 am
18 Nov 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:19 pm
18 Nov 2008
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:12 pm
18 Nov 2008
I guess Newt and Sarah are better for those of us in the opposition, but Ahnoldt could actually revive and transform it kind of like Reagan did, but in a greener smarter mode.
Maybe it's best if the social conservatives keep on running the GOP? Ahnoldt can keep doing good stuff out west. Terminate GHG!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:12 pm
18 Nov 2008
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 2:35 am
19 Nov 2008
Permalink