Anna Caballero, a Democratic state senator from a district near me in California, had a proposal that I actually agreed with. She wanted the term “renewable energy” in California law to refer to–hold on to your hat–renewable energy.
Specifically, she wanted to allow two utilities, in the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts, to be able to categorize as renewable energy electricity that turbines at the Don Pedro Reservoir generated. Certainly such energy sounds renewable. But her measure failed to get enough support in the California Senate.
Why did the categorization matter? Because of a law that former Governor Jerry Brown signed last year that requires utilities in California to, by 2030, produce 60 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.
Did the opponents argue that hydroelectric energy is not renewable energy? No. Politics in California is sometimes crazy but no opponent I know of argued that a particular form of renewable energy is not renewable energy.
So what did the opponents argue? Here’s what Paul Rogers of the Bay Area News Group reported:
The bill drew stiff opposition from environmental and health groups, from the Sierra Club to the American Lung Association. They argued that if Don Pedro’s electricity was counted as renewable, then the owners of dozens of other large dams would want the same treatment. That would mean that demand for solar and wind power could falter.
In other words, these interest groups have decided that the way to meet the renewable energy goal is to have more solar and wind power even if hydroelectric power is cheaper. They are set on their solution. Notice that that means that they don’t really want renewable energy. They want solar and wind.
READER COMMENTS
Kevin Dick
Jun 5 2019 at 9:56pm
I know you oppose a Pigouvian carbon tax. But if we could get the middle of the road greens to agree that it would replace all targeted measures, it would surely be better than these shenanigans.
Yes, I realize that the “if” does a lot of work in that sentence 🙂 And I realize that the more extreme greens would resist any change that would disadvantage their ideologically preferred solutions.
I just think it’s worth some effort to try and move the Overton window away from this silliness.
Kevin Dick
Jun 6 2019 at 1:45pm
A recent working paper from the University of Chicago that calculates abatement cost for renewable energy mandates at $130-$460/MTon
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFIEPIC_WP_201962_v4.pdf
Vivian Darkbloom
Jun 6 2019 at 1:06am
“Nationally and internationally, large hydroelectric plants—or mega-dams—are often considered to be nonrenewable energy. Mega-dams divert and reduce natural flows, restricting access for animal and human populations that rely on rivers. Small hydroelectric plants (an installed capacity below about 40 megawatts), carefully managed, do not tend to cause as much environmental damage, as they divert only a fraction of flow.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/renewable-energy-clean-facts#sec-whatis
That seems to be their best argument even if one does not agree with it.
Joel Pollen
Jun 6 2019 at 11:35am
I actually think that’s a rather poor argument. Your source says that when hydroelectric dams are used, they can change the flow of the river, which affects people downstream. However, it does not follow they dams aren’t renewable energy. One of the links you gave defines renewable energy as that which “comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished.” As far as I know, water isn’t used up in hydroelectric dams, and it is continually replenished by the water cycle (i.e. evaporation and rainfall). Whether this technology has other negative effects is important, but has no bearing on whether it is renewable.
For what it’s worth: wind power also has negative environmental effects. Admittedly these effects are minor, but no one argues that wind power is therefore not renewable.
marc alberts
Jun 10 2019 at 12:17pm
I think the difference is that wind power or solar don’t tend to devastate entire ecosystems, which large dams can do (like killing wild salmon runs, for example, or warming the water which causes the proliferation of unwanted species). These create externalities that I don’t think the other forms of renewal energy have, which possibly warrants a different classification. Maybe there should be multiple categories of renewables? Maybe one that is considered minimal impact versus ones that have significant adverse ecosystem impacts?
I don’t have a really strong opinion here since I think this is a classification issue based on the “renewable” tag, but thought this may clarify the issue.
JFA
Jun 6 2019 at 9:11am
To be fair, water in California might not be that renewable. 🙂
IronSig
Jun 7 2019 at 7:08am
That sounds like a reason to build more dams.
Floccina
Jun 6 2019 at 10:45am
The phrase renewable energy is a little soft even when referring to solar and wind. The panels and generators do not last forever and need to be made with mined materials, I think even with recycling.
Thaomas
Jun 6 2019 at 11:25am
Pretty silly, I agree, but I think the problem is more fundamental. The legislation targets and instrument (renewable energy) rather than zero-CO2 emitting energy. [It’s like the Fed targeting interest rates rather than NGDP or some other combination of full employment and a predictable rate of inflation.] Nuclear energy is not exactly “renewable” — the reserves of uranium/thorium are as finite as fossil fuels themselves, but their use like geothermal emits no CO2.
robc
Jun 6 2019 at 3:40pm
The mining of Uranium emits a decent amount of CO2. Sure, less than other sources of energey, but it isn’t zero.
TMC
Jun 6 2019 at 6:30pm
Mining for the materials for solar panels require CO2 as well, not to mention the nasty cleanup when the panels are end of life. A dam is about the least destructive kind of solar power I can think of. (Think about how that water gets there).
Comments are closed.