When California Governor Jerry Brown signed the latest green energy legislation into law last week, environmentalists applauded his efforts to assure the state is on the leading edge of renewable energy. Many Californian’s, on the other hand, felt yet another drain on their already dwindling financial resources.
Brown touted the new law as job creating; critics claim it is job killing. According to research by the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a trade group representing renewable energy companies, 100,000 new green jobs could be created as a result of the new regulations. Critics claim that for every new green job created, up to two jobs in traditional energy fields are lost. They go on to say that once government incentives go dry, even many of the green jobs will dissipate, suggesting that government support of these Wall Street companies hide their high production costs and lack of competitiveness.
Furthermore, critics say, technology has not been perfected to make many of these schemes viable. What sounds good in concept simply does not work with the constantly changing variables and challenges Mother Nature provides. In addition, many come with their own environmental concerns such as the impacts that both solar and wind energy have on local species and habitats.
Governor Brown disagrees, stating that the shift from coal to natural gas will propel California to the forefront as the country’s leader in renewable energy and place it on the cutting edge. Green energy companies say the change will help them find investors and secure financial resources to make renewable energy viable.
Either way, the cost of electricity is expected to rise significantly over the next nine years as utilities are forced to obtain at least 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, such as solar and wind energy, by 2020. The increase in costs will likely chase manufacturing firms from the state.
Only days before signing the renewable energy legislation, Governor Brown declared California’s drought to be over—a drought many claim was man made due again to environmental regulations. In 2009 due to a “biological opinion” imposing water restrictions to protect a species of fish known as the Delta Smelt, California started diverting tens of billions of gallons of water from farmers into the Pacific Ocean, leaving farmland scorched and farmers unable to produce agricultural products. Despite possible remedies, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to come to the aid of the farmers and instead sided with environmentalists.
According to Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-22) who represents one of California’s largest agricultural districts, “In fact, the recent drought has shown vividly how state and federal regulations on water flows have exacerbated the damage of a natural drought on our local economies. California is the largest producer of agricultural products in the nation, and a reliable water supply is vital to job creation and food production in our communities. Unfortunately, government overregulation and overzealous environmentalists continue to perpetuate a man-made drought by putting a tiny fish above our residents.”
“Protecting our ecosystem should be a priority, but it must not come at such a devastating cost to those living and working in our local communities. Thousands of acres of land have been fallowed, countless agricultural jobs have been lost and double-digit employment rates plague the Central Valley. This is unacceptable and the worst part is, there are solutions to this man-made crisis,” wrote McCarthy in a newsletter to constituents.
McCarthy, along with Congressman Jeff Denham, has sponsored H.R. 869 to increase water storage capabilities in the Central Valley during wet years rather than just releasing it. The bill would make available approximately 70,000 acre-feet of additional water. Democrats have thwarted previous attempts at resolving the water issue, possibly due to the fact that many are beholden to environmental groups.
As we have discussed in this column in several past articles, sometimes we simply cannot determine why politicians make the decisions they do, such as in the case of the Orange County Sanitation District. A majority of the board of directors has voted to continue to pour millions of Southern California tax dollars into failed green technology of a Wall Street company based in the South while employees in some of their respective cities are being laid off and rate increases were forced upon local residents.
The decision by OCSD did not only affects the residents of Orange County but, in some cases, had an even greater impact on residents in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties. OCSD had the chance in February to begin the process of terminating their contract with EnerTech, a plant located in Rialto, California, that was contracted to turn biosolids from the four counties into “green energy” to fuel local cement kilns. In return for producing “green energy,” the five jurisdictions agreed to pay millions of dollars above the going rate to dispose of their biosolids, the byproduct from water reclamation plants. Had OCSD instead determined that the contract was not in the best interests of their residents, all five jursidictions would have likely been able to get out of their respective contracts.
EnerTech, through what appears to be smoke and mirrors (based on the information on their website as they have never returned calls or emails), convinced these entities to subsidize their startup business with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars over the period of the contracts for failed technology that produces brown energy, when it is producing any energy at all. Even after an independent audit performed for the shareholders showed that millions of dollars more would have to be invested to possibly make the technology work, the OCSD board of directors voted to hold off for at least one more year before starting litigation to end the contract. So far no one from the organization has been able to provide a reasonable excuse for spending tax dollars in this manner.
Whether it is laws governing water, wind, the sun, or waste, politicians seem eager to throw taxpayer dollars at failed technology and flawed environmental regulation. Few residents would argue that we need to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, our water supply, and our waste disposal and landfill issues. At the same time, many feel politicos should cater to the needs of the people rather than corporations looking to make a buck at our expense with no promise of improvement in these areas. It is questionable whether green technology as we know it today helps the environment; there is little question it costs our residents dearly in an economy where they are simply trying to keep food on the table and a minimum standard of living, a situation many politicos do not share.
Comments