Like any big challenge, building a clean energy future requires us to meet lots of little challenges. One of them is coming to a head in San Diego County this week.
On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will decide whether San Diego communities will be forced into a 40-year relationship with a fossil fuel power plant at the expense of clean energy solutions. The CPUC will vote on a proposal to build a new natural gas plant as part of the replacement for the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The deal for the new gas plant, which was originally estimated to cost electricity customers $2.6 billion, was struck behind closed doors and pushed forward without giving clean energy a chance to compete.
Back when the San Onofre plant was retired, the CPUC left the door open for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to replace it with 100 percent clean energy -- a decision that suggested the commission was finally recognizing clean energy’s potential. It directed SDG&E to procure between 500 and 800 MW of new generation, of which at least 200 MW had to come from renewables. The remainder could come from some combination of energy efficiency, renewables, energy storage, or gas generation.
In meeting the need for this additional 300 to 600 MW, SDG&E was supposed to follow state policy, which requires that clean energy resources be considered before resorting to gas. That did not happen. Instead, SDG&E privately negotiated a deal to build a 600-MW gas-fired power plant -- without considering clean energy alternatives.
On March 6, a CPUC administrative law judge rejected that deal, pointing out that clean energy could potentially meet all of this demand and should have been given a fair chance to compete. Instead, CPUC president Michael Picker introduced a plan for immediate approval of a slightly reduced 500-MW Carlsbad natural gas facility: The Carlsbad Energy Center. With only a token reduction in the size of the gas plant, Picker’s proposal would guarantee that investment in clean energy is shortchanged.
That's not only irresponsible but also completely out of step with California’s clean energy goals: By 2030, half of the state's electricity generation is supposed to come from clean energy sources and carbon pollution is supposed to be 40 percent below 1990 levels. If the goals are going to be met, then now is not the time to be locking in an unnecessary investment in a dirty fossil fuel plant for decades to come.
It's also not what San Diegans want. San Diego's mayor and city council have already set a goal for the city to run on 100 percent clean energy by 2035. Other cities in the region are exploring the creation of nonprofit community choice energy programs that bundle the buying power of local residents and businesses and use it to take control of their energy destinies and embrace local clean energy.
Even the CPUC's Picker has acknowledged that California has the ability to reach 100 percent clean energy. "I am not eager to approve another gas-fired power plant," he has said. Then why rush to lock out clean energy sources without giving them proper consideration? Energy storage technology is quickly advancing, allowing for greater integration of solar, wind, geothermal, and other emerging clean energy technologies. The cost of solar is becoming more competitive with gas and will only continue to become more affordable, reliable, and locally accessible.
Right now the CPUC has an opportunity to lead California by prioritizing investment in clean energy over fossil fuels. This decision is at the heart of how we create our energy future.
Let the commission know that clean energy must be allowed to compete.