CARSON CITY, Nev. - Nevada clean-energy advocates say they are very disappointed in Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court to block the "Bring Back Solar" initiative from appearing on the November ballot. The justices took issue with the language used to describe the proposal, saying it is inaccurate, misleading and argumentative to use the term "green power" or to assert that the current rate structure is "unaffordable and cost-prohibitive."
Chandler Sherman, deputy campaign manager for the Bring Back Solar Alliance said, "The Supreme Court disagreed with the way that our description of effect was phrased. But because the description of effect was on the documents that all 115,000 Nevada voters signed, they've invalidated those signatures, which means we can no longer be on the November ballot."
The initiative, which would have been Question Five on the Nevada ballot, would have reversed a decision made last December by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to change the rate structure for rooftop solar, effectively killing the industry in the state. Immediately following that decision, several major rooftop-solar companies pulled out of Nevada, laying off hundreds of workers.
The Governor's New Energy Task Force has set several meetings over the next two months to discuss a variety of proposals and make a recommendation to the Governor. Sherman said solar-power advocates will look to the 2017 Legislature to resolve this issue.
"It's clear that this is what the people want," she added. "The people want to restore net metering and bring solar back to the state. And we're looking forward to working with legislators and stakeholders to make this a reality next session."
She said lawmakers are submitting draft bills over the next few months. So far, no legislator has signed on to carry a net metering bill. Question Three, which asks voters to end NV Energy's electric-power monopoly in the state, remains on the ballot.
The full text of the decision can be read here.
get more stories like this via email
Environmental groups are seeking greater input as California puts the finishing touches on its application to become a hub for hydrogen fuel production. This is billed as a big step toward a zero-carbon emission future. The project is being managed by a public-private partnership called the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, known as ARCHES.
Monica Embrey, energy director for the California Sierra Club, called this a good opportunity to advance climate progress but only if certain guardrails are put in place.
"If they use existing pipelines, they would have to really upgrade them quite a lot. And we want to make sure that those have safety mechanisms in place so that communities get to say whether or not a pipeline near them actually gets used for hydrogen. We want leakage monitoring, we want really strict standards," she said.
Hydrogen is extremely explosive and is a major greenhouse-gas pollutant if it leaks or is burned and will not be used for homes or commercial buildings, but instead will be targeted to medium and heavy-duty vehicles, ports and power plants, which are especially difficult to decarbonize, ARCHES said.
In addition, ARCHES said hydrogen will be produced using renewable power and will not be blended with natural gas within pipelines.
SoCal Gas and Chevron have been consulting on the application. The ARCHES website calls for meaningful engagement with community groups and environmental justice advocates.
Bahram Fazeli, director of research and policy with the nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment, said the planning process has been vague to date.
"They have done a very poor job of prioritizing environmental justice or public health in their process. They're not open to California's open-meeting laws and public participation. They only have one environmental-justice representative on the 11-member board, " Fazeli said.
The application to the Department of Energy is due April 7th. New hydrogen hubs could bring more than $1-billion in federal investment to California, supporters said.
Disclosure: National Association of Community Health Centers contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A bill designed to fight price-gouging at the gas pump is expected to pass the California State Assembly today and be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom soon after.
Senate Bill X1-2 would create a watchdog at the California Energy Commission empowered to set a "reasonable" profit margin for gasoline and assess penalties for price-gouging.
Meghan Sahli-Wells, former mayor of Culver City and California director of the group Elected Officials to Protect America, said oil companies must be held accountable.
"What we've seen is behind these price hikes aren't the external forces that the big oil companies have blamed for the humongous price spikes," Sahli-Wells asserted. "What we've seen are refineries that have doubled their profits."
The Western States Petroleum Association has slammed the bill, blaming high gas prices on a supply shortage linked to a lack of investment in refining capacity and necessary infrastructure.
Gas prices last summer and fall hit an average of $6.42 per gallon in California, more than $2.50 higher than the national average.
The oil and gas industry is behind a ballot measure to roll back a California law passed last year requiring new drilling permits to include setbacks from homes and schools. Sahli-Wells argued the state needs to cut air pollution from burning fossil fuels, adding she does not like recent mailers blaming higher gas prices on state regulation.
"The industry itself is going hot and heavy on propaganda to scare people into dialing back environmental protection," Sahli-Wells contended. "It does feel somewhat like an 'oil war' is happening in California. But we know that if we are to win, that oil must lose."
The new watchdog would also have the power to subpoena business records in order to root out price manipulation.
Disclosure: Elected Officials to Protect America contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
California lawmakers hold a hearing in Sacramento today on a bill to hold oil companies and gasoline refiners accountable for alleged price gouging.
According to the Office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, gas prices in California hit an average of $6.42 per gallon last fall, which was $2.61 more than the national average. And it happened even as crude oil prices dropped and state taxes and fees remained unchanged.
Farrah Khan, mayor of Irvine, said she supports Senate Bill 2, which would establish an independent watchdog within the California Energy Commission.
"It's going to establish a new division to provide independent oversight and analysis of the market," Khan explained. "This new division would have the power to subpoena information deemed necessary to root out and address any of the abuses of market power."
The Western States Petroleum Association said in a statement, "This new windfall penalty in this proposal is actually worse than the original bill. The Legislature would be giving away all its authority to a group of unelected bureaucrats who will have the power to set gasoline prices and impact fuels markets. [This] will likely lead to the same unintended consequences as his initial proposal - less investment, less supply, and higher gasoline prices for Californians."
Steven Hernandez, mayor of Coachella, said it is a matter of fairness to the families who live paycheck to paycheck.
"People struggle to afford gas and rent, and to pay medical expenses," Hernandez pointed out. "When we're mindful of the working class, I think we're better off as a society."
The California Energy Commission watchdog would analyze data to look for patterns of misconduct or price manipulation. The bill would also start a rule-making process at the Commission, to set a reasonable profit margin and impose a penalty for price-gouging above the margin. Any fines would be returned to taxpayers.
get more stories like this via email