Bureaucracy - California Style [RE-wrenches]

[Matt Lafferty]

Wrenches:

Graham wrote:

> There might be a chink in the armor if it can be demonstrated that the PGC
> (Public Goods Charge) is in fact not public?  How do we find out who
> amended the text in SB1078, which changed, and classified PV
> installations with PGC funds to be deemed Public works?

Graham:

Short answer: Ask Kathy Lynch or Sue Kateley.  I had the sponsoring
activist....errrr lobbyist's name here somewhere on a note but can't find it
right now.  Sticks in my head that his name was Matt something.  Poor guy.
I could be wrong.  The bill was carried by Sher...well, you have all that
info.

Background on how this happened:  1078 (Renewable Portfolio Standard or,
RPS) was not seen by the PV People as really impacting PV but they thought
it was a good thing so kind of just said "Attaboy...Way to Go!  Rah!  Rah!".
Basically didn't pay attention and tried to maintain some handle on the
Net-Metering, etc. stuff that was such a bloody brawl down at the Capitol
last fall.  Unfortunately a couple of "fall on your swords" items weren't as
apparent to them as I wish they were...Oh, well, you can't win them all.

FYI - The primary reason the PV'ers didn't see the RPS as being that big for
PV is that the amount of generation and the proportionate size of that
generation would be more likely to go the way of Bio-gas, Large Wind, etc.
(We're talking about needing 10+ MW plants....Quite a few of them all over
and operational to meet the kind of #'s that would be required by the RPS.
Not a really viable market for PV...)

OK, now the IOU's, even most Munis, don't really want RE crammed down their
throats, but they can't publicly say they are "anti-environment" now, can
they?  The CEC Buydown program is a thorn in the IOU's side because it spurs
DG and "lots of little ones" at that.  Mainstream Utility thinking is that,
"Bigger is Better.  We know how to build, run, and license those."  To a
Utility, anything under 60 or 70 MW isn't worth spitting on.  A 75 MW plant
is regarded as a "Peaker" only.

Any larger type generation generally has Prevailing Wages on the project.
Even with PV.  How many "large" PV Systems are out there that aren't done on
Government or Municipal Property?  How big is "large"?  Let's say....Oh, 100
kW.  Any in the States?  If so, were any of those done on a non-prevailing
basis?  None that come to my mind right now.

See?  To the RPS people the prevailing requirement was no big deal since the
contractors doing the scale of projects that would be the "backboner" of
meeting the RPS goals had the infrastructure, capital resources and
experience doing prevailing work anyway.  I don't believe it was malicious
on their part.

Well....The Big Bad Utilities, Munis included, were busy working to defeat
or at least water down all three active RE related bills at the same time.
The RPS (1078), Net Metering (AB 58), and Buydown Program (SB 1038).

By the way....Net Metering and Buydown don't apply to most of the Generators
that would be built & operated to satify the RPS....They are too large.  The
RPS people (When I say it that way, please know that they are Green and have
the best of intent.) weren't really paying attention to the PV people and
vice versa.  Both sides see the other as "kissin' cousins"....Joel D should
understand that...lol.  Kind of related by a green philosophy, but with
quite different needs.

Well, the CEC isn't incorporated in the RPS....Only the reference to the PGC
and the usual "legal entanglements" that following all the references to
section this and section that bring about.....Same with the Buydown.

This was one of the Utility "Sneakers" that got in.   They had the knowledge
from fighting all three at once and the intent of making it as hard and
burdensome as possible to do anything "small".  They don't want to do
anything that they don't have control over, especially if it is small and
distributed.  It becomes a big headache to them, in their eyes.

If you read all three, and follow and read all the references through to
completion, you will find that "everything" got related in one way or the
other.

Who is responsible for this?  Hmmmm.....Let's talk about that.

The Utilities definitely were active in the "debate".  Another significant
contributor is the Pro-Labor Democrats in this state.  They are blind to the
realities of the real world.  Their pockets are also lined with money from
the Unions, etc.  When the Utilities incorporated this prevailing
requirement it looked like a win-win....Too bad the Legislators don't have
to manage the process once it is mandated...Term limits would be
un-necessary because they'd just quit.

Pray for Sun!  Got mine right now!  :-)

-Matt Lafferty
pvpro at attbi.com

- - - -
To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com

Archive of previous messages: http://www.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/

List rules & etiquette: http://www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm

Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/index.html

Hosted by Home Power magazine

Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: michael.welch at homepower.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Qcs.bz9JC9.bWljaGFl
Or send an email to: RE-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================