Florida pushes toward more renewable energy

Gov. Charlie Crist on Friday won an important victory in his plans to slash Florida’s greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy.

The Florida Public Service Commission unanimously agreed to require the state’s utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2020, resisting industry efforts to weaken Crist’s goal. The vote sets the agenda for state legislators, who will have the final say later this year.

“That’s great!” Crist said, when told about the targets Friday evening in Miami. “I am overjoyed. I praise their courage.”

The vote marked a milestone in the energy initiatives Crist first announced in 2007. The commission had considered proposals with deadlines as late as 2050, a proposal that won support from utilities and outrage from environmentalists. On Friday evening, the commissioners decided that only an aggressive target would spur the state’s energy industry into action.

“I have always insisted that it needed to be 20 by 2020 if we’re going to get real,” said Commissioner Nancy Argenziano.

The targets are a sharp change of course for a state that gets less than 3 percent of its power from renewable energy. The proposal calls for 7 percent renewable energy by January 2013, 12 percent by 2016, 18 percent by 2019 and 20 percent by end of 2020.

“I see it as a stretch goal, but I also see that as part of the purpose,” said Commissioner Lisa Polak Edgar.

Environmentalists spent months trying to counter lobbying by utilities to include “clean” coal and nuclear power in the renewable definition. They had decried the drawn out time lines as “timid,” and pushed the commission to stick with the 2020 goal. On Friday, they reacted with delight, even as they prepared for the legislative battle ahead.

“This is a tremendous victory,” said Jerry Karnas, Florida climate project director for the Environmental Defense Fund, who commended the commissioners for courage and foresight. Now, the Legislature must be persuaded to follow their lead, he said.

“We’re thrilled with the time line and targets,” said George Cavros, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “We think those targets will drive renewable energy in Florida and create green jobs in Florida.”

The proposal includes consumer protections to limit electric rate increases, and carves out a slice of the goal that must be met with wind and solar power. It bars “clean” coal from the definition, but opens the door to the possible inclusion of new nuclear power in a modified “clean energy” goal supported by Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light. Both utilities plan to build new nuclear plants in the next decade.

-Asjylyn Loder and Craig Pittman, Times staff writers

Comments

[Peter]

HOW ABOUT GETTING BUSY WITH CHANGING THE LAW WHICH FORCES CUSTOMERS TO PAY FOR COSTS OF 2 PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BY PROGRESS ENERGY AND PLACE THIS IN THE HANDS OF PROGRESS ENERGY SHAREHOLDERS OR WOULD YOU RATHER CONTINUE TO MAKE FLORIDA LESSS APPEALING DUE TO OUTRAGEOUS ELECTRICITY RATES AND MANY OTHER THINGS ?

[Grim Reaper]

Nuclear energy is not clean energy. It is a waste whose dangers last a life time. Ask the folks at Chernobyl in the Ukraine if nuclear energy is clean energy.

[President elect]

Governor Crist is useless, except at catering to utilities like Progress Energy and taking trips to Europe at taxpayers expense. Cannot wait for the next election so we can send this guy on his way to political oblivion.

Catering to Progress?!! I think you meant catering to FP&L.

[President elect]

How about catering to both !!!!!!!

[paminator]

"The proposal includes consumer protections to limit electric rate increases, and carves out a slice of the goal that must be met with wind and solar power."

This is an absolute disaster. Solar and wind will double or triple power generation costs for the utilities, while at the same time preventing them from covering the excessive costs through higher electricity prices. It doesn't work, as PG&E and SoCal Edison found out almost ten years ago when they went bankrupt. The final result in CA are electricity prices ranging from 20 to 50 cents per kWhr, depending on time of day.

When FL does not come close to these goals, what are the ramifications? My guess is there will be none.

[kevin]

Bravo to the PSC for having the backbone to take on the utility lobby!

It's about time FL joined the rest of the country in promoting home-grown renewable energy that will provide jobs and wean us off prohibtively expensive power plants - like nuclear.

Amen!

About time the PSC stopped fighting the will of the citizens and the governor.

[President elect]

I know a great place to start with budget cuts. Eliminate the impotent and useless Public Services Commission. They are a rubber stamp for Progress Energy and the governor. Of course they back the governor, he reappoints them to this plush useless job.

[Tino]

paminator,

you are arguing at a level well above everyone's head. The ignorant masses (well represented in this blog) don't understand the underlying fundamentals of the energy business. They like to complain and find this to be a nice forum to vent their frustrations.

Every day (Saturday's SPT, again) features a collection of "outraged citizens" who honestly believe that a collection of solar, wind, unicorn farts and rainbows will power us cheaply and reliably for decades to come.

We can either try to educate them or mock them. I can't decide which is better, so I do both.

[paminator]

Tino-

Well that's just silly. As you know, big oil dined on unicorns to extinction, so harnessing their farts is just a pipe-dream now.

:-)

[Tino]

To everyone complaining about paying their electric bills: get ready for an all-out assault on your liberties/wallets from the incoming administration.

"rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

"Energy-guzzling flatscreen plasma televisions will soon be banned as part of the battle against climate change"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html

[paminator]

Well, there appear to be some sensible legislators in FL-

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-01-13/story/legislative_panel_skeptical_about_global_warming

"Legislators also questioned whether Florida could make much difference acting on its own or as one of a small number of states tackling climate change, or whether the 2 percent limit in the increase of consumers’ utility bills would raise enough money to bankroll the renewable fuels goal.

“It seems to me we’re sending the kid out with money for a hamburger and asking him to come back with a lobster,” said chairman Paige Kreegel, R-Punta Gorda."

[Tom]

FYI:
Southern California Edison is not bankrupt. It sells electricity for 13.5 cents per kwh. It has been installing solar panels on its customers' properties at a rate of one megawatt per week since August of 2008, for less than half the cost per megawatt of Progress Energy's new nukes. This is easily verifiable.

[Tino]

Sure, Tom.

Here's the link to the SCE rate tariffs. Please enlighten us.

http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/tariffbooks/ratespricing/

[paminator]

Tom-

Thanks to Tino's link, it is easily verified that your claim of 13.5 cents/kwh for residential electricity in CA is wrong. The baseline value starts at around 19 cents/kWhr and rapidly rises from there as electricity use exceeds the baseline total each month.

SCE and PG&E are not currently bankrupt. No-one claimed that was the case.

We would all be very interested in your providing numbers to back up your claim that residential solar panels in CA are half the cost of the the nuclear units being built in Florida. Lets see the numbers so we all can be assured of this extraordinary hypothesis.

[Tino]

I'm used to this kind of circular logic from eco-greenies:

1. wind and solar power are cheaper than existing baseload technologies
2. we need to provide wind and solar power with more subsidies so they can compete

huh?

[Tom]

I know a family in Santa Monica. Their recent monthly bill from SCE was $58.42 for 432 kwh. That's 13.5 cents per kwh. SCE is installing 250 megawatts of solar on commercial rooftops for $875 million. That's $3.5 million per megawatt. Progress Energy plans 2200 megawatts for $17 billion. That's $7.7 million per megawatt. As to subsidies, lets do away with every form of subsidy for every form of energy and let the market decide. Without the insurance subsidy provided by the Price-Anderson Act, no nuclear plant would ever have been built. Without the waste storage subsidy provided by Yucca Mountain, existing nuclear plants would have to shut down. For a peek at the latest in solar panels, go to www.solyndra.com

[paminator]

Tom- Its interesting that your anecdotal pricing does not jibe with official documents on pricing. I suspect there may be rebates or incentives involved in this number. However, your lower price for conventional electricity is nothing but bad news for solar PV, as it makes solar PV even less economical.

SCE is installing solar PV at $3.5/Watt? This number clearly does not include subsidies that offset the true cost. The Progress Energy number of $7.7/W is closer to reality. But in either case, the numbers you quote are nameplate rating, which does not account for availability. Correcting for this 'little' factor drives the cost of solar PV up by a factor of 3-5, depending on where you live, if you are comparing with other sources of electricity such as NG, nuclear, coal, or oil.

As for subsidies, the nuclear fleet has been paying into a waste handling fund for decades now. The money is sitting, waiting to be used for a permanent facility. As you are well aware, the subsidies to wind and solar on a MWhr basis dwarf (by more than a factor of ten) the subsidies associated with all conventional sources of energy. And as far as insurance for nuclear facilities, the entire fiasco was created by hyperventilating news media reporters back in the 1970's. I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant than a wind farm or a solar farm when a hurricane rumbles through.

And as you are also well aware, the price of solar PV has increased since 2003. Forecasts each year predict dramatic reductions in costs, but of course that is quickly converted to increased corporate profits, since rebates and tax credits have created an artificial market for solar PV (and wind). Just look at the screams of anguish from renewable energy lobbyists every time the renewable incentives are ready to sunset.