A Senate bill that would have committed California to 100 percent renewable, zero-carbon electricity resources by 2045 will have to wait until next legislative session begins.
Introduced by California Senate Leader Kevin de León, SB 100 accelerates current green electricity goals to ensure the 100 percent goal remains on track.
SB 100 passed in the Senate and many California environmental groups supported the bill’s goals. However, due to rumors around the bill, Assembly members decided to defer SB 100’s hearing until January, when legislators return to session.
Smooth sailing, then bumps
Bills are questioned, reviewed and sometimes deferred, but according to Environment California Clean Energy Advocate Michelle Kinman, a lot of rumors circulated about SB 100 in the days and weeks leading up to a Sept. 11 hearing.
“The understanding we have is that in the last week or so of the session, special interests, in the form of the utility workers and the electrical workers union, came out strong against the bill, whereas they had been previously supporting the bill,” Kinman said. “They were successful in stalling the bill over until next year.”
While Kinman said IBEW, the electrical workers union, originally supported SB 100’s green electricity goal, IBEW Local 1245 Business Representative Hunter Stern disagreed.
Stern argued that the bill needed more time to adhere to electrical regulations and that it’s currently impossible to fully depend on intermittent sources of energy, such as wind and solar.
“It’s physically not possible, this isn’t a political or even policy discussion,” Stern said. “Electricity has physical characteristics. In order for the grid to operate, there has to be a voltage regulation and other facets to ensure there’s electricity in all places in all times, and you can’t rely on intermittent resources.”
Background
SB 100 is a Renewable Portfolio Standard bill, meaning it creates regulations that require the increase of renewable resources. It isn’t the first bill of it’s kind. In 2015, Sen. de León introduced and passed Senate Bill 350, which is very similar to SB 100.
That bill, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, committed California to obtaining 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy resources by December 31, 2030. Therefore, SB 100 is actually an extension of SB 350.
Moreover, SB 100 increased the rate of conversion to green energy by setting more ambitious goals along the way to 2045.
Concerns Not Resolved
When a bill is moving through the legislative process, amendments often are made to try to come to a compromise.
This bill was no different. It was amended seven times: three times in the Senate and four times in the Assembly. Right now, there seems to be disagreement over whether the bill should be amended more or not.
According to an email from Sen. de León’s press secretary, Jonathan Underland, it’s unlikely any changes will be made to the bill before the session resumes in January.
Underland said that Sen. de León is committed to achieving his 100 percent clean, renewable energy goal and that this bill is not going away.
According to Stern, the bill as is doesn’t address IBEW’s main concerns: safety and protecting the electric distribution system.
“(SB 100) would've created a circumstance where the state is moving forward requiring a mandated accelerated RPS without requisite safety and reliability mechanisms and without the direction to the various state agencies to make sure the state (has) reliable electric service,” Stern said.
And, he said, SB 100 needs some sort of oversight program to ensure the public isn’t at risk.
“Because most of the changes and upgrades that are anticipated under SB 100 are admissions made by customers and attaching that to the grid directly without a state regulatory oversight to ensure that’s done in a safe and reliable way, our members are at risk and the public is at risk. And grid reliability is at risk,” Stern said.
Support Going Forward Unclear
Due to the mixed feelings between environmental agencies, Environment California organized a 12-city press tour during the month leading up to Sept. 11’s hearing. Kinman said this tour went from the Bay Area to multiple Southern California counties and received support from most attendees.
Environment California was able to “link arms,” with environmental groups, safety leaders, business leaders and even quite a few labor interests at these press tour events, according to Kinman.
Even some electricity labor unions such as IBEW supported SB 100.
“IBEW local entities stood up with us at those events as late as the week before the end of the session. We had members of the SEIU and then also the Communications Workers Union stand up with us so you know really this was in our minds a successful ploy by special interests to short circuit the bill from being heard this year,” Kinman said. “But that is not representative of the widespread support amongst Californians at large and all these different sectors that have stood up with us in support of this bill.”
This press tour, however, did not include any locations north of the Bay Area.
Kinman said SB 100 has “widespread support amongst Californians,” but she’s referring to a phone call survey of 1,708 random California adult residents. So it’s unclear whether a majority of Californians across the state support the bill.
Butte County’s Assemblyman, James Gallagher, voted no on SB 100’s most recent amendment.
According to an email from Assembly Fellow Stephen Veldhuizen, Gallagher is concerned that SB 100 doesn’t have a mechanism to control ratepayer prices, which could mean Californians will be forced to shoulder significant price increases.
Additionally, Veldhuizen said that Californians would also be subject to blackouts, brownouts and grid unreliability due to the unpredictable nature of renewable resources.
