"Perverse Incentives:" Why SDG&E's Montana wind farm scheme is wrong, wrong, wrong
UCAN News
SDG&E wind farm proposal will be located in Montana, cost $600 million, and will send all of its green power to Canada.
UCAN is fighting this one.
In today's San Diego Union Tribune, Onell Soto reports on the the latest of SDG&E's outrages: In order to meet a legal mandate to generate 20% of its power from green energy sources it will spend $600 million on a Montana wind farm and export the power to Canada.
It's a great example of honoring the letter of the law and not its spirit. Part of the effort - and the vision - of developing green energy sources instead of more dependency on coal and natural gas from potentially hostile foreign sources is that a green revolution will create local jobs, local industry, and local prosperity.
What SDG&E's filing misses by a mile is that the state desperately needs job HERE, not in Montana. We want green energy HERE, not in Canada, and most of all, we want local sources of green energy HERE to prevent energy extortion and rolling blackouts from out-of-state energy swindlers (remember the "rolling black mail" and energy laundering by Enron and Sempra Trading back in 2001?).
In the story, UCAN's Executive Director and other clean energy advocates have denounced the plan as "perverse" with Shames saying: "It's a disturbing example of how this Commission's obsession with renewable power results in perverse incentives for utilities, and a very compelling reason why the regulators have to seriously reassess its tradeable renewable energy credit policy."
You can read the full story here. And just remember, the next time SDG&E talks about generating 20% of its energy from green sources, what it means is that it plans to send jobs to Montana, while selling energy to Canada. Yikes!
Post to Twitter
Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!
Utility Consumers' Action Network - (619) 696-6966
Terms and Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be: a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the Fraud Squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved. Remember, if you have any questions about copyright law or need legal information regarding intellectual property, the internet, or new technologies, visit our affiliate New Media Rights at www.newmediarights.org. If you are in the San Diego region, you can also can apply to use New Media Rights' multimedia studio and equipment for free.
Be a Part of the Solution
If the selfish goal is local jobs and local generation of energy I believe UCAN could protest organizations that work to block local projects. Including themselves. SDG&E is mandated to meet the 20% requirement and they'll attempt to do it at the lowest costs. Local attempts to work on the issue is met with delaying tactics and legal blockage to prevent anything from progressing. You can't get something for nothing. If you're not helping the problem you part of it.
I personally think the whole Cap 'n Trade concept is a crock and any government requirements with financial penalties is wrong. Green energy is a good goal and something to strive for, but when roadblocks are always being placed in the path of SDG&E's answer just because it doesn't meet with others idea of of what's right is just as wrong. Come up with economical solutions that meet the goals if you're really serious about jobs.
Local jobs, local energy, lower rates
Hailstorm - We agree that Cap N Trade has the potential to be gamed by big players, but we have offered at least 15 more economical, local, green solutions to building the Sunrise PowerLink. The idea that we are stopping progress, stopping green energy, and costing money is patently ludicrous. Oh, did we mention that SDG&E predicted rolling blackouts this year if Sunrise wasn't built? Or that they lied to the court about too many issues to list here? Please glance over our testimonay at http://bit.ly/9vVyZ2
At what cost ?
As we all know CO2 emissions and other emissions are not a local issue, but a regional and domestic issue. In comparing alternative methods of adding generation resources within WECC, cost comparions between alternatives should be of interest to stakeholders and I am not sure if your arguments reflect the general opinion of the public that green resources should only be added locally without any regard for costs and increase in rates.
Post new comment