|
|
What's the real story behind California's energy shortage?
There's a lot of myth and rhetoric floating around. Some,
including President Bush, have tried to pin the crunch on
environmentalists and clean-air standards, but energy experts
point to poorly planned deregulation and mistakes by the
utilities.
Below, some perspective from editorials and opinion pieces
on the issue. |
The Bush Administration has pointed to environmental standards as
the cause of California's energy shortage. But, as the Los Angeles
Times said in a recent editorial:
"In fact, it was regulatory uncertainty and economic
decisions by utilities and private generating companies that
caused the lack of new plants."
The Bush administration also claimed that California's energy
shortage shows that we need to drill in the Arctic Refuge. But as
the Los Angeles Times noted:
"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one
kilowatt of electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce
any oil for an estimated 10 years...
The amount of oil thought to be there is not enough to
significantly ease the United States' dependence on foreign oil.
Nor is it enough to outweigh the value of this region as a
wilderness home to caribou, wolves, bears, musk oxen and hundreds
of other species."
The New York Times also noted that
"it is wholly specious to suggest, as Mr. Bush does, a
connection between opening the refuge and California's energy
problems. Less than 1 percent of California's electricity comes
from oil. California's fuel of choice is natural gas, and if Mr.
Bush wants to find natural gas, there are far better places than
the coastal plain to look for it."
The Times also states, that though we need a balanced energy
strategy,
"the first step in that strategy should not be to
start punching holes in the Arctic Refuge... the relatively
trivial amounts of recoverable oil in the refuge cannot possibly
justify the potential corruption of a unique and irreplaceable
natural area."
The entire editorial "Wrong Way on Energy" (Jan. 31) can be found
at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/opinion/31WED1.html
Paul Krugman of The New York Times noted in a recent column,
"Smog and Mirrors" (Jan. 31), that though George W. Bush placed the
blame for California's shortage on air-quality standards,
"his assertion was swiftly contradicted — not just by
environmentalists and California officials, but by the energy
industry. A spokesman for Houston- based Reliant Energy, which
operates four Southern California plants, told The Los Angeles
Times that assertions that environmental regulations were holding
back power production were "absolutely false."
Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a
role in California's failure to build new plants in the years
since deregulation..."
Paul Krugmans's entire column, "Smog and Mirrors" (Jan 31.) can
be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/opinion/31KRUG.html
California Energy Myths
California's energy shortage has given rise to a slew of myths
and misperceptions about the causes of and solutions to the crunch.
In an effort to separate fact from fiction, the Sierra Club has
prepared this document. Sierra Club energy experts are also
available to provide more information.
Myths and facts below:
To set up an interview or get more information, please contact
the Sierra Club media staff: media.team@sierraclub.org.
MYTH: Environmentalists caused California's power
shortage.
FACT: As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial (Jan.
31, 2001):
"The California electricity shortage was not caused by
environmental extremism..." And, as Paul Krugman of the New York
Times said ("Smog and Mirrors" Jan. 31, 2001), "Nor, apparently,
did environmental regulations play much of a role in California's
failure to build new plants in the years since deregulation."
The California electricity shortage is mainly the result of a
flawed deregulation plan compounded by mistakes made by the
utilities.
- The Sierra Club has not blocked or delayed any new power
plants in California over the last ten years.
- The Sierra Club has long been in favor of updating old,
inefficient generating plants with cleaner, more efficient ones
and we support the proposed Calpine generating plant slated to be
built near San Jose. Unfortunately, this plant has been blocked by
Cisco Systems, who is planning to build an office park nearby.
- In 1995, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations
supported the construction of the 1400 megawatts of new, clean
generating capacity. According to an article in the Los Angeles
Daily News ("By Killing Plan, Socal Edison Helped Create Power
Crisis," Jan. 21):
"...Southern California Edison and other utilities
helped kill a state plan that would have authorized the creation
of new power plants sufficient to power 1.4 million homes,
records and interviews show." The utilities hoped that they
could buy " plenty of cheaper power elsewhere..."
- To add insult to injury the same Daily New article reported:
"By state law, much of the power was ordered to come from
renewable energy such as wind, geothermal and solar."
- According to the California Energy Commission, no electric
power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution
issues.
MYTH: The Sierra Club is against building new power plants
in California.
FACT: The Sierra Club has long advocated for modernizing
or replacing older power plants with newer ones. New power plants
are up to 50% more efficient and up to 90% cleaner than older ones.
Utilities and power producers on the other hand, have resisted
building new plants over the last ten years because, until recently,
demand did not force them to do so and because the utilities knew
that deregulation would force them to sell off plants.
In the last three years, a number of proposed power plants have
been slowed by objections from competing energy companies. According
to the Sacramento Bee (Jan. 28, 2001):
"Of the 21 power plants proposed for licensing since
1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 proposals, slowing
the process in at least four situations..."
MYTH: Higher energy prices and the California energy
crunch show that we need to increase our oil supply by drilling in
the Arctic National Refuge.
FACT: California gets less than 1% of its electricity from
oil-fired plants and, as the Los Angeles Times states ("Arctic Oil a
Sham Answer," Jan. 31, 2001):
"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one
kilowatt or electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce
any oil for an estimated 10 years."
Instead of drilling in the Arctic, we could find a new source of
oil by raising automobile and light-truck fuel-economy standards. If
we increased fuel economy standards by just 6 percent each year, by
the time oil from the Arctic became available, we could be saving
1.1 billion barrels of oil annually. That's more oil than we import
from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and
estimates of oil in the Arctic, and national offshore oil
combined.
MYTH: Air-quality restrictions have caused blackouts
across the state.
FACT: Air-quality restrictions are not a major factor in
the blackouts. In fact, dirty plants are highly inefficient and
waste valuable fuel. The blackouts are due to a lack of energy
production and are mainly the result of the flawed deregulation plan
and mistakes made by the utilities.
According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing
Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001) with the
exception of a small utility in Glendale, power plants around the
state "are cranking out as many megawatts as possible to ward off
blackouts."
MYTH: The Sierra Club supported California's energy
deregulation.
FACT: The Sierra Club did not support California's energy
deregulation because we thought it would not benefit consumers or
the environment.
MYTH: Air pollution standards are unnecessary and too
expensive.
FACT: Californians enjoy breathing cleaner air in part
because we have taken sensible steps to reduce pollution from power
plants and these limits have affected the price of electricity
minimally.
According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing
Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001)
"Air quality rules in the Los Angeles region have had
a role in raising the cost of power... But because only a fraction
of the state's power is generated in the region, the overall price
impact is limited."
And these pollution standards have helped clean-up LA's air
pollution: In 1981 Los Angeles had 180 days where smog reached
unsafe levels; in 1999, LA had only 42 unsafe days.
Photo licensed to Sierra Club; used with
permission.
Up to
Top |