Million Solar Roofs Initiative: a reply

I received the following thoughtful reply from State Senator Debra Bowen, in response to my letter in support of SB1, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your support for SB 1 (Murray).  Your views on bills and issues facing the Legislature are very important to me and I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.

SB 1 was approved by the Senate earlier this year, but eventually died in the Assembly when a number of the details involved in the measure couldn't be worked out.  As you probably know, the bill was amended late in the session to require prevailing wages to be paid on certain projects and to require all installers to have a particular type of license.  This caused a split in the organized labor community and led the Governor and other Republicans to oppose the bill as well.

Personally, I support renewable energy technology, I have solar panels on my own house, and I really wanted to be able to support SB 1. However, I don't support solar technology - or any technology - "at all costs" and that's why I wasn't able to support SB 1 when it came before me in the Senate earlier this year. 

I've always believed our energy mix should be viewed, to a certain extent, like a 401(k) investment portfolio.  You aren't going to bank your entire future on Google stock (even though right now that looks like a brilliant idea), but at the same time, you're not going to stick every penny you have into municipal bonds either.

The same is true for energy.

There has to be some investment in natural gas, in renewables, in hydro, wind, solar, and in energy efficiency programs.  Energy efficiency is hands-down the cheapest way to get the cleanest power out there and the good news is it's getting cheaper.

On September 22, the Public Utilities Commission did possibly the smartest thing I've seen in some time by taking $2 billion and investing it in energy efficiency programs over the next three years. Energy efficiency programs are running at about 3 cents a kilowatt hour these days, costing us less than any form of generation out there.  The new PUC program will be the equivalent of building about three new 500 megawatt gas-fired plants and this $2 billion investment will save ratepayers an estimated $5.4 billion over three years.

Although energy efficiency is the most cost-effective form of energy at 3 cents a kilowatt hour, conservation alone isn't going to get us where we need to be.  What should our mix of energy be, taking into account stability, efficiency, reliability, and cost?  According to the California Energy Commission, the levelized cost of the various
technologies, which includes the cost of producing, transmitting, and subsidizing each technology (but not the intangible costs of the technology, such as the cost of dealing with air pollution associated with a given power source):

o    Geothermal runs 4.5 cents to 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
o    Wind is less than 5 cents, but it isn't reliable and it's not useable at the peak times.
o    Natural gas plants run at just over 5 cents, but we know what happens when we rely too much on natural gas for our electricity.
o    Hydro power runs around 6 cents.
o    Solar power from photo voltaic panels costs more than 42 cents.

This year in Sacramento, there was a great deal of time and energy put into trying to make SB 1 work.  I'm very concerned about "picking" a technology winner as the bill did.  Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with SB 1 if it:

1.    Included some rigorous benchmarking and performance standards. You wouldn't toss your money into an investment portfolio, let it sit there, then check back in 20 years to see how it did, so this shouldn't be any different.  Projects should be required to produce a certain amount of power in order to receive any ratepayer-financed subsidy.
2.    Spent the money on public projects - buildings, parking lots, you name it - so all taxpayers would enjoy the benefits equally.

Despite what people say, solar isn't "free."

The sunshine may be free of charge, but the technology needed to turn it into power, which has been one of the most heavily subsidized energy technologies out there for the past two decades, still costs more than 42 cents a kilowatt hour to produce.

Should we be investing in solar power?

Absolutely.

But just as costs shouldn't be the only factor we use to evaluate our energy investments, we also shouldn't be completely ignoring those costs in an effort to provide a $2 billion benefit to one specific type of technology. 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me with your support for SB 1.   If you have further questions or need assistance with another state-related measure, please don't hesitate to contact me at (310) 318-6994.

Sincerely,

Debra Bowen
Senator, 28th District

Comments

[Gayle]

I hope Debra realizes that in a matter of a few years, we will have less petroleum resources for energy. The price of oil will continue to rise to the point where .42 a watt will probably be reasonable.