Blast83

After reading the convincing argument sent to my Gmail box by Solar Nation, I had intended to write a Vote No message for California’s Proposition 7.  The ballot initiative was proposed by Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, grad of UC Santa Barbara, who, according to the article, has little expertise in the solar arena and wrote a crappy proposition that will screw up all the progress made in California because of some bad writing…

Just imagine my surprise after more research into the Proposition revealed that it would require California public utilities to procure half of their electricity from solar and other clean energy facilities by 2025, not just maintain the goals for privately owned energy management sights.  It’s interesting to note that this would directly affect California’s public utilities such as Edison and PG&E.  They would be basically mandated to procure at least 25% of their energy by clean sources resulting in a forced change in the way they do business.  I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.  Change would happen faster than if left to an invisible hand…

Already, 2009 doesn’t live up to the hype or my own personal hopes for the solar industry take over.  According to the 2009 Energy Portfolio Outlook, not much has changed yet.  Go big or go home Obama.  You’d better be ready to show your stuff in 2009…

Just as California is attempting to throw up solar panel installations on homeowners’ rooftops in Berkeley (see Berkeley FIRST entry) and the rest of the state begins bandwagoning on the renewable energy resource expansion, Prop 7 allegedly comes alone and redefines what counts in the state’s overall renewable energy source count.  Solar initiatives become redefined as Plants that generate a minimum 30 MWs of power. There is a debate as to if in fact the Proposition actually makes this distinction or not and the arguments for or against align with the support of lack thereof for the proposition.

However, if the language does make that distinction, the proposition doesn’t help the current energy situation in California.  If it doesn’t, then the proposition is a fantastically forward looking attempt at massive utilities change.  SMUD, the Sacramento Municipal Utilities Department, already went 50% renewable energy at a profit. Every public utilities should be copying their president.  Making excuses is just foot dragging laziness…

The California solar market is growing with 60% of its new solar resources being home based instillation.  If these installations become ineligible to count in California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards then the overall change to renewables might look like the numbers moved two steps forward and a step back in the total amount of green growth.  (The energy program outlined by the RPS is a joint effort by the California Energy Commission and California’s Public Utilities Commission to produce change in California’s energy procurement possibilities.)  If, however, the proposition doesn’t in fact change the designations, then I’m not so closed minded to the proposition at all.  Sometimes society needs a governmental push in the right direction in order to make great leaps in progress. (It happened in Germany in 2004 and now there are solar panels everywhere.)

As energy procurement methods change, it’s better to count the established changes already in effect.  Rooftop generation instillation are usually quite small, 3 MW, and definitely below 20 MW.  With Prop 7, would these types of solar installations count? Arguments against Prop 7 say they won’t, arguments for Prop 7 say that this criticism is unfounded. The Sierra Club, Democratic Party and Republican Party all say No to Prop 7 but D Aitken (just received World Solar Industry award), S.D. Freemann (energy adviser to Kennedy and Carter) and F. Kydland the 2007 Nobel Prize economist say Yes along with the Gay and Lesbian Times and the Napa Valley Register.  There’s a big business vs science dichotomy in support, leading me to wonder if business might just be battling against scientific measures.

Perhaps the Proposition forces public utilities to change their polluting ways sooner rather than later in order to create a stimulus for California, allowing the state to show off, yet again, its amazing potential.  (And the ultimate benefits of fantastic weather.) That would lead to some fantastic change.

So what do you think?  Is business blocking environmental progress?  Or is it just bad Proposition writing?

Here’s a table laying out what the Presidential Candidates standing on energy issues… In case you’re wondering….

Just some notes about personal energy procurement (think along the lines of how convenient using a personal computer is as opposed to having to go to the library to use their linked network):  Home solar set ups are conveniently located close to the location of the needed power.  Home generated solar power can be put to use as soon as someone in the house needs a little extra AC in the summer. Transmission distances from solar array to the using source, the house, is minimal which is good because power moved over long distances loses its efficiency because of transmission congestion.  Home systems lessen the necessity to design new transmitting mechanisms as well which is better as new infrastructure is an extra expense.   Solar energy will hopefully meet price parity with polluting energy sooner rather than later.

Lets keep up the good work and not get waylaid in the middle by redefining what counts and what doesn’t towards solving the problem.  If however, a proposition encourages both methods of solving the energy problem at the same time (as opposed to putting one solution above the other) I’m all for it.  Alright California, any comments?

LA Times NO vote:

Napa Valley Register says Yes:

I don’t know but the research level of the two articles seems suspiciously like one did more than the other…