California mandates 100 percent clean energy by 2045

[K1052]

The new law keeps California at the forefront of addressing climate change, and essentially commits the world’s fifth-largest economy with 40 million people to a phase-out of fossil fuels from power plants. It also requires that 50 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy by 2026 and 60 percent by 2030, up from the current level of 32 percent.

At a ceremony in the state Capitol, Brown signed SB 100, by State Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles. The new law gives California the most far-reaching clean energy goals of any U.S. state, along with Hawaii, which set a similar target in 2015 of 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045.

Californians overall seem to favor the law. In a poll in July by the Public Policy Institute of California, a non-partisan research organization, 67 percent of likely voters said they favored the 100 percent clean energy measure, and 21 percent opposed it.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/10/california-mandates-100-percent-clean-energy-by-2045/

CA had been working on this legislation for a couple years and finally passed it and Brown has signed. Pretty amazing goal for what is the world's 5th largest economy on it's own.

They'll be after the transport sector next.

 

[Josephus312]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/10/california-mandates-100-percent-clean-energy-by-2045/

CA had been working on this legislation for a couple years and finally passed it and Brown has signed. Pretty amazing goal for what is the world's 5th largest economy on it's own.

They'll be after the transport sector next.

As a goal it is laudable but I would want to see more targeted investment so it can actually become an achievable goal. Do that and I'm in full support.

 

[K1052]

As a goal it is laudable but I would want to see more targeted investment so it can actually become an achievable goal. Do that and I'm in full support.

CA utilities have to work to meet the new RPS milestones and the 2045 goal, it's not optional.

 

[Josephus312]

CA utilities have to work to meet the new RPS milestones and the 2045 goal, it's not optional.

I know but without targeted investments it doesn't really matter since it won't happen. I'm a fan of targeted investments to work towards things rather than making policy without direction.

 

[K1052]

I know but without targeted investments it doesn't really matter since it won't happen. I'm a fan of targeted investments to work towards things rather than making policy without direction.

I think the opposite and RPS is proven to work. Telling utilities where to end up rather than dictating how exactly to get there is more cost effective/realistic.

 

[Commodus]

I'll say this: however focused the plan is, it's a reminder that Trump can only do so much to try and kill the planet in the name of fossil fuel money... the country is going to go green whether he likes it or not.

 

[Josephus312]

I think the opposite and RPS is proven to work. Telling utilities where to end up rather than dictating how exactly to get there is more cost effective/realistic.

Well, direction isn't the same as dictation so we're in agreement there even though we used different words but I still say that targeted investments is a more effective way to solve a problem. Focus the money flow to solve the problem and there is no need to neither dictate or direct (though directing is what targeted investments is all about). Just setting an end goal without investments to see it fulfilled is a hopeless endeavour though.

 

[K1052]

Just setting an end goal without investments to see it fulfilled is a hopeless endeavour though.

Uh...you realize that wilful failure to comply with state law would open utilities up to vast penalties via their regulator, CPUC. This is why RPS has worked.

 

[Josephus312]

Uh...you realize that wilful failure to comply with state law would open utilities up to vast penalties via their regulator, CPUC. This is why RPS has worked.

Again YES I get that. I'm still arguing the same thing, you have to invest in something that is costly to do for it to ACTUALLY HAPPEN. That is my point and if you do that, if you target investments to make something happen you don't actually have to make laws about it, it will happen naturally since it's the direction of the investment.

If the standards are not met because no one gives a fuck about them until the times grows near when they have to and they then fail then the punishment for that is nil. Demanding targeted investments force a project to move forward in a specific direction no matter what and it's a much better solution.

This is a much too big and much to time consuming project to be left to "you need to do this and here, use your investments as you please in the meantime".

 

[brycejones]

So no future for high paying coal washing jobs in CA? On a long enough time scale coal is a renewable resource. 😀

 

[Greenman]

Uh...you realize that wilful failure to comply with state law would open utilities up to vast penalties via their regulator, CPUC. This is why RPS has worked.

Here in the bay area that would be PG&E. As with every other fine they pay, it just gets passed along to the consumer. So if they don't make the grade, we pay more for energy.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just read a study proposing using wind and solar to stop the desertification of the Sahara while producing 4 times earth’s current energy use resulting in more rain. Wonder if something similar in Ca. A wetter Southern Ca would solve alotof other problems.

 

[Josephus312]

Here in the bay area that would be PG&E. As with every other fine they pay, it just gets passed along to the consumer. So if they don't make the grade, we pay more for energy.

Yup and that is why you need targeted investments, if there is an opportunity in it people will not just follow the money, they will invest their own money into it too.

 

[Josephus312]

I just read a study proposing using wind and solar to stop the desertification of the Sahara while producing 4 times earth’s current energy use resulting in more rain. Wonder if something similar in Ca. A wetter Southern Ca would solve alotof other problems.

Logistics is the problem with that proposal but there may be a solution using EM field transfer through satellites in the near future.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/10/california-mandates-100-percent-clean-energy-by-2045/

CA had been working on this legislation for a couple years and finally passed it and Brown has signed. Pretty amazing goal for what is the world's 5th largest economy on it's own.

They'll be after the transport sector next.

Good for them. I'm you know... an actual conservative that is in favor of whatever a given state wants to do.

Just like how California is so fucking dumb they opt to mark everything as causing cancer and now the rest of the US laughs at them.

But by all means, kudos to CA here - they have a lot of money under their belt to make these demands. You know, they are acting mighty conservative with making these sorts of laws at the state level 😉

 

[BoomerD]

and just...15-20 years ago, there was a mad push to build more natural gas-fired co-gen plants in CA. I made a ton of money working on a few of them.

 

[K1052]

Here in the bay area that would be PG&E. As with every other fine they pay, it just gets passed along to the consumer. So if they don't make the grade, we pay more for energy.

CPUC would have to authorize any such recovery via rates which for a willful violation they wouldn't. Company would have to eat it and explain to shareholders (fund managers) why they exposed the company to massive unrecoverable penalties.

 

[K1052]

and just...15-20 years ago, there was a mad push to build more natural gas-fired co-gen plants in CA. I made a ton of money working on a few of them.

There will likely never be any new gas fired generation built in the state. The big, expensive, and very public leak at Aliso Canyon didn't exactly help. Probably a rush into storage tech soon so electricians will have plenty of work.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’m all for it. They need to make sure red tape is cut so that projects aren’t held up because a bird flys through there or something. Sucks but the bigger picture is far more important. Also the state has to be able to prevent NIMBYism from derailing it as well. I think the nation as a whole should follow suit though. Energy companies would still pursue they’d just have a definite target for their investments bs the wishy washyness of the current energy climate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Logistics is the problem with that proposal but there may be a solution using EM field transfer through satellites in the near future.

Necessity is the mother of invention so we just have to increase our need, especially laudable need like maybe saving the planet.

 

[Vic]

Good for them. I'm you know... an actual conservative that is in favor of whatever a given state wants to do.

Just like how California is so fucking dumb they opt to mark everything as causing cancer and now the rest of the US laughs at them.

But by all means, kudos to CA here - they have a lot of money under their belt to make these demands. You know, they are acting mighty conservative with making these sorts of laws at the state level 😉

You're right about the California 65 warnings. That shit is good intentions gone to government hell.
But this? I'm not so sure. The biggest myth that conservatives love IMO is that new energy sources must be more expensive. That's simply not the case, as greater efficiency is always less expensive and leads to greater prosperity, all else being equal.
The actual problem (and expense) is the transition, ie the new infrastructure, etc. And as that cost should rightly be borne by the assetholders, naturally they're the ones who have to be pushed into making the transition, and who are trying to convince everyone that the ratepayers will be getting the shaft. Because if they have their way...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You're right about the California 65 warnings. That shit is good intentions gone to government hell.
But this? I'm not so sure. The biggest myth that conservatives love IMO is that new energy sources must be more expensive. That's simply not the case, as greater efficiency is always less expensive and leads to greater prosperity, all else being equal.
The actual problem (and expense) is the transition, ie the new infrastructure, etc. And as that cost should rightly be borne by the assetholders, naturally they're the ones who have to be pushed into making the transition, and who are trying to convince everyone that the ratepayers will be getting the shaft. Because if they have their way...

No no - don't mis-interpret my post. As sarcastic as I often am, I am ultimately giving kudos to California here - they are definitely a driving force of our nation's economy.

I don't always agree with them on their decisions, but I give them kudos for using their rights as a state to enact things as they see fit. People will either abide by it and embrace their new laws (because there is plenty of consumer capital to be had there) - or people will get annoyed with all their rules and leave. We will see - but something tells me people will mostly grin and bear it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Great goal, but I wonder about the practicality and what the cost will be. No matter how the plan is implemented, consumers will ultimately pay the costs.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Great goal, but I wonder about the practicality and what the cost will be. No matter how the plan is implemented, consumers will ultimately pay the costs.

Vs the external costs that go unpaid through the continued use of dirty fuels. Investment is required, we pay now or we pay later. And it’s much, much easier to pay now.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good for them. I'm you know... an actual conservative that is in favor of whatever a given state wants to do.

Just like how California is so fucking dumb they opt to mark everything as causing cancer and now the rest of the US laughs at them.

But by all means, kudos to CA here - they have a lot of money under their belt to make these demands. You know, they are acting mighty conservative with making these sorts of laws at the state level 😉

I with ya on states rights, I don't chastise for prop 65, it's actually something I'll look into when I see it. They have a website dedicated to what its all about on how things make it to the list.