The California Public Utilities Commission’s recent decision in the tradable renewable energy credits, the granting of the State of compliance with the portfolio standard for renewable energy is not universally welcomed.
Days before the decision was announced Jan. 13, the Commission released a letter to the independent energy Producers Association, whose membership includes the Organization says, participate in the renewable energy sources, as well as gas-fired power plants operate in companies producing companies in the group.
Letter to the Commission proposal for a decision, which refers to the tradable renewable energy credits, said, “the development of the first week of the 2011 leaves us yet again stymied and that, when and where to build new, clean technologies to be confused.”
“On the other hand,” the letter said, “the office mandatory policies proposed decisions Articulated offer only a minor role in the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy projects through the out-of-State. Recently filed lawsuits in the block, on the other hand, significant progress on the major projects of the State. How to meet the objectives of the proposed California RPS, when they are trying to develop in line with the objectives of these projects have been caught in crossfire of this legal and regulatory framework for? “
Renewable energy credits or certificates representing the cleaner energy environment attributes. Market, if they are bought and sold one credit represents one megawatt hours of renewable energy sources generally electricity, such as solar energy. Accessories to buy these credits as a renewable energy requirements. For example, the California executive order signed by the then-gov.Jo: Arnold Schwarzenegger, requires the State to produce significant private utilities, 33% of the energy mix from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Public Utilities Commission decision tradable renewable energy credits, to restrict the ability of utilities to buy standards outside of the State of renewable energy sources.
Independent energy Producers Association wanted to out-of-State producers of renewable energy sources is greater than that permitted by the Commission on market access.
Michael r. Peevey letter prodcers Public Utilities Commission energy group, Jan Smutny-Jones, Chairman of the Board of Directors, said, “comments on the proposed decisions in the past, the IEP, worried that the proposals of the discriminated against comparably is located and the electronic equivalent of renewable natural resources, which must be placed outside of California.”
The letter stated that the recently adopted solar power plants to the Southern California against mountaintop removal is now facing legal action to them.
“Even if the proposed decision fell through the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy generation out-of-state very limited role, some of the same parties, which invited the legal restrictions were to attack the State in the light of the new projects,” Mr. Smutny-Jones, the letter said. “After the efforts of the California Energy Commission’s extraordinary, as well as other State and federal agencies, to adopt a critical new wind and solar energy projects during 2010, some of the same benefits, which invited the Commission to restrict the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy projects through the out-of-State has started a series of State renewable generation 2011 challenges.”
The letter went to, say, that “ironically, interest groups, representing the State, so strongly to the development of priority in the arena are often the same TRECs entities that stand for the development of the actual status of the projects by way of derogation from paragraph 1,” the Commission’s message said. “If the out-of-State renewable generation will not be counted as RPS obligations and State generation is blocked at the trials, how California will satisfy the 33% by 2020, RPS?”
The Commission approved the use of tradable renewable energy credits, the denial of the petition for independent energy producers ‘ organizations, as well as the State sought to reject amendments to three large companies in the investor-owned utility, while at the same time.