California legislators are poised to vote this week on a pair of bills that would help renters and low-income communities go solar.
But the bills have encountered stiff resistance from some utility companies, which call them unnecessary and expensive.
While California homeowners have been installing solar systems on their rooftops at a rapid clip, renters don't have that option. So one of the bills, SB843, would allow renters to buy electricity from solar systems located elsewhere.
They would sign contracts with developers sticking solar panels on warehouses, office buildings or open fields. The renters would then receive a credit on their monthly utility bill. Businesses or government agencies that lease their buildings could do the same. The bill could add as much as 2 gigawatts of solar power - roughly the equivalent of two nuclear reactors - to the state's electricity grid.
"It's the ability to allow more participation, allow more types of people to participate in the solar economy," said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar advocacy group. "There is a tremendous level of interest in this."
Another piece of legislation, AB1990, tries to bring solar power to poor communities, particularly those suffering from high levels of pollution. It would order the state's utilities to buy electricity at a guaranteed price from solar systems located in those communities, as an incentive for solar developers to install systems there.
Supporters see it as a way to generate solar-installation jobs in communities that are often located near factories, oil refineries or older power plants burning fossil fuels.
"Renewable energy is a huge demand from these communities, because they're the ones suffering the most," said Strela Cervas, co-coordinator of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. "We keep hearing about the promise of the green economy, but our communities haven't been seeing those green jobs. And we haven't been seeing the health benefits, either."
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison, the state's largest utilities, have pushed hard against both bills.
Aaron Johnson, PG&E's renewable energy policy director, said neither bill is needed. California's utilities already must get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2020. They already offer "feed-in tariffs" to buy electricity at set prices from small renewable power generators. And while solar power has plunged in cost, it is still more expensive than conventional electricity generation.
At the same time, the amount of electricity demand - or "load" - that PG&E faces isn't growing, at least not much.
"It raises this question: How much renewable energy can we add to a system that is essentially flat in load and has been for several years?" Johnson said. "At some point, how many different niche programs do we need to obligate a utility to buy more renewable energy? We're sort of reaching a saturation point."
PG&E also has specific concerns about each bill. SB843 would require the utilities to buy large amounts of electricity from the new, renter-subscribed solar facilities at a price the utilities consider too high. And those purchases would not count toward the state's requirement that they get one-third of their power from renewable sources.
AB1990, meanwhile, largely duplicates the state's existing feed-in tariff program, Johnson said. It wouldn't guarantee that solar companies hire local workers in disadvantaged communities, nor would it lead to the prompt closure of older, polluting power plants nearby.
"The reality is, you don't just build solar and then shut down all the conventional power plants," Johnson said. "In fact, in some cases, you'll need more conventional plants to back up the solar."
Supporters acknowledge as much but say the spread of solar power will eventually cut the need for older plants. And in the meantime, the Assembly bill may kick-start solar development in communities it has so far passed by.
"One pilot program is not going to shut down a power plant," Cervas said. "This is a first step forward."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-legislation-opposed-by-utilities-3819538.php
 |
| Supporters of AB1990 see it as a way to create solar-installation jobs in poor communities. |
But the bills have encountered stiff resistance from some utility companies, which call them unnecessary and expensive.
While California homeowners have been installing solar systems on their rooftops at a rapid clip, renters don't have that option. So one of the bills, SB843, would allow renters to buy electricity from solar systems located elsewhere.
They would sign contracts with developers sticking solar panels on warehouses, office buildings or open fields. The renters would then receive a credit on their monthly utility bill. Businesses or government agencies that lease their buildings could do the same. The bill could add as much as 2 gigawatts of solar power - roughly the equivalent of two nuclear reactors - to the state's electricity grid.
"It's the ability to allow more participation, allow more types of people to participate in the solar economy," said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar advocacy group. "There is a tremendous level of interest in this."
Another piece of legislation, AB1990, tries to bring solar power to poor communities, particularly those suffering from high levels of pollution. It would order the state's utilities to buy electricity at a guaranteed price from solar systems located in those communities, as an incentive for solar developers to install systems there.
Supporters see it as a way to generate solar-installation jobs in communities that are often located near factories, oil refineries or older power plants burning fossil fuels.
'Huge demand'
"Renewable energy is a huge demand from these communities, because they're the ones suffering the most," said Strela Cervas, co-coordinator of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. "We keep hearing about the promise of the green economy, but our communities haven't been seeing those green jobs. And we haven't been seeing the health benefits, either."
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison, the state's largest utilities, have pushed hard against both bills.
Aaron Johnson, PG&E's renewable energy policy director, said neither bill is needed. California's utilities already must get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2020. They already offer "feed-in tariffs" to buy electricity at set prices from small renewable power generators. And while solar power has plunged in cost, it is still more expensive than conventional electricity generation.
At the same time, the amount of electricity demand - or "load" - that PG&E faces isn't growing, at least not much.
"It raises this question: How much renewable energy can we add to a system that is essentially flat in load and has been for several years?" Johnson said. "At some point, how many different niche programs do we need to obligate a utility to buy more renewable energy? We're sort of reaching a saturation point."
PG&E's concerns
PG&E also has specific concerns about each bill. SB843 would require the utilities to buy large amounts of electricity from the new, renter-subscribed solar facilities at a price the utilities consider too high. And those purchases would not count toward the state's requirement that they get one-third of their power from renewable sources.
AB1990, meanwhile, largely duplicates the state's existing feed-in tariff program, Johnson said. It wouldn't guarantee that solar companies hire local workers in disadvantaged communities, nor would it lead to the prompt closure of older, polluting power plants nearby.
"The reality is, you don't just build solar and then shut down all the conventional power plants," Johnson said. "In fact, in some cases, you'll need more conventional plants to back up the solar."
Supporters acknowledge as much but say the spread of solar power will eventually cut the need for older plants. And in the meantime, the Assembly bill may kick-start solar development in communities it has so far passed by.
"One pilot program is not going to shut down a power plant," Cervas said. "This is a first step forward."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-legislation-opposed-by-utilities-3819538.php
No comments:
Post a Comment