Executive Fiat is No Substitute for Legal Protections

San Francisco — TURN today said an executive order to increase the use of renewable energy in California was a poor substitute for legislation.  The Governor is justifying a veto of two bipartisan bills to boost green power in California with an executive order that does not contain any consumer protections.  The legislation would keep jobs and environmental benefits in state, while the executive order would raise rates to support the development of renewable projects in other parts of the West and Canada.

TURN staff attorney Matt Freedman said the legislation, SB 14 and AB 64, “represents a balanced combination of consumer protections, clear directives to the utilities, flexibility in meeting targets, strict definitions of eligible resources, and will provide real clean energy and clear economic benefits to California.”

In contrast, Freedman said, the Governor’s executive order does not overturn existing law, will not provide long-term stability for investors and developers, and leaves hundreds of important details to be determined by the Air Resources Board — an understaffed and overburdened agency lacking the experience or expertise to regulate energy purchasing.

The two plans are different in several ways:

• The Governor’s order allows utilities to engage in sham transactions in which filthy, coal-fired electricity can be imported into California and claimed as renewable.  The legislation requires renewable energy to be actually delivered into California.
• The Governor’s order offers no real consumer protections to limit rate increases.  The legislation contains cost controls.
• The Governor’s order sends clean energy investments, jobs, tax revenues and environmental benefits away from California to other parts of the West and Canada.  The legislation maximizes benefits to California.
• The Governor can allow nuclear power, trash burning and hydroelectric dams to satisfy renewables goals if he wants to. The legislation has strict eligibility rules so that only truly renewable power would qualify for reaching the 33% target.

“Without requirements for in-state resource development,” Freedman said, “33% renewable electricity may amount to higher rates in exchange for nothing more than a piece of paper and a lump of coal.”