|
A pending PUC ruling could affect renewable energy standards in Nevada and elsewhere
BY EMMILY BRISTOL
Pop quiz: Which state has the most progressive renewable energy standard in the country? Would you believe it's Nevada?
"Nevada is very bold," says David Morris, a former energy advisor to four presidents. He is also the vice president of Democratic Energy, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that analyzes laws around the country to promote localized, more efficient energy production.
"We would prefer to have people generating energy on their rooftops, in their backyards and in their communities [rather than transporting it from distant locations]," Morris says. "Our goal is local self-reliance."
Morris' group is closely watching Nevada because our chief energy company ## Nevada Power, a subsidiary of Sierra Pacific ## has never met the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and has applied to the Public Utilities Commission for retroactive waivers. The portfolio standard refers to specific laws mandating a percentage of a state's overall power supply come from renewable sources. Under the current law, passed in 2001, Nevada's two main power companies (the PUC treats Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific as separate companies) must ramp up their renewable energy supply from 5 percent in 2003/2004 to 7 percent in 2005/2006. The goal is to reach 15 percent by 2013.
Those percentages alone aren't considered progressive, Morris says. Maine, for example, requires 30 percent of power to be drawn from renewable sources. But in Maine, power companies were already generating that amount when that state's law was passed in 1997. (Maine, by the way, doesn't allow for waivers; companies that don't meet the standard can't sell to retail customers.)
In Nevada, companies were only generating a small amount of renewable power before the Legislature imposed standards for the first time; that makes the increase to 7 percent all the more dramatic, Morris says.
This year, 5 percent of the required 7 percent renewable energy was supposed to come from solar power, which represents just 0.35 percent of Sierra Pacific's overall energy supply. In Northern Nevada, the company missed its solar requirement but met requirements for other renewable sources, like wind power. In Southern Nevada, the company didn't meet any component of the requirement.
To some, failing to meet the solar requirement in Nevada is almost ridiculous.
"We are the solar capital of the nation in terms of the amount of sun we get," says Par Rasmusson, president of the locally based American Solar Energy Association. There is almost no excuse for not trying to harness solar energy, Rasmusson says.
Last year was the first year the company's progress could be measured, since the requirements didn't take effect until 2003. The PUC approved waivers for both Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power for 2003. On April 27, the companies asked for waivers for 2004, as well.
Outside the meeting, local environmentalists from the Sierra Club held a news conference to encourage a full hearing on the matter. Nevada's progressive portfolio standard doesn't do anybody any good if it's not enforced, says Tara Smith, the group's spokeswoman.
The environmentalists got their wish as the PUC decided to conduct a full hearing on the 2004 waiver issue. The new hearing has not yet been scheduled, but is expected to happen in about a month.
Gary Wood, Nevada Power project manager and the company's renewable energy expert, says the situation is not entirely the power company's fault.
"Our developers aren't on line when they said they'd be," Wood says. "It takes time [to build these projects]." The company hired developers to build renewable energy facilities, mainly for solar power. But those developers had a hard time securing funding because the power company was in danger of bankruptcy, says Wood.
During the last year the company has put together a state-administered program called the Temporary Renewable Energy Trust to act as a funding source for development projects. The trust will be funded by future customer fees, Wood says. "Essentially what it does is get rid of the threat of bankruptcy," he adds.
Maybe so, but environmentalists charge the power companies have had plenty of time to comply with renewable energy requirements. They say passing along an added fee to customers won't help the cause of greener energy. However, Morris says despite the initial costs of renewable energy, most people only see their bills rise by about 30 cents per month. Meanwhile, renewable and localized energy sources keep pollution down, he says.
At least 15 other states have Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards written into their laws.
"Most utility companies have fought renewable energy standards and they have been slow to embrace it," Morris says. The end result is often a watered-down version of the original idea. Wood, however, says Sierra Pacific never tried to fight the renewable energy standard.
But a fight may still be brewing at the PUC hearing.
"All eyes are going to be on Nevada as for how you deal with a utility company that doesn't comply," Morris says. "I hope you take them to task. You are one of the first states to confront a company that doesn't comply with the law."
Emmily Bristol is a CityLife staff writer. She can be reached at 871-6780 ext. 344 or
ebristol@lvpress.com |
