I would like to see California struggling with climate change from the perspective of the “Democracy Laboratory”. And while you were watching, one of my favorite journalists, Sami Roth, helped me.
California lawmakers last night approved a clear and polarized energy law that would make it easier for government officials to purchase electricity from coastal gas plants and diesel generators, and approved solar and wind farms in protest of local governments.
The amazing thing about this macro scale is that California is facing the reality of power today and tomorrow. As I often say, they cannot solve the engineering problem in many words. The charitable nature of how easy carbon decomposition is and when the evil oil and gas industry forbids it, one really has to be energized. So the legislature was arguing, and they came up with something that looked like: at least to some extent emotional. Interestingly, Rot referred to the account as “polarized”. What amazes me is that the old vague misunderstanding is “polarized” misunderstanding. Or perhaps by naming plant-differences in this way, we show the extremes and make the center invisible. Boring and practical people who want to cope with climate change and keep the lights on.
Here is a link to the article. For TSW purposes, however, I would like to focus on the Bill of Rights for Acceleration of Infrastructure Construction, some of the ideas that may be of interest to expedite licensing on federal land in the past.
Special supply companies will be able to access solar farms, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries – as well as power lines to connect those utilities to the network – into an expedited verification process that does not require county government signatures. . State officials are required to conduct environmental assessments and approve or reject those projects within nine months. For any project approval, legal challenges must be resolved by state courts within another nine months.
(At least some local governments are not happy.
Local governments are sometimes seen as a major obstacle to clean energy, with San Bernardino County regulators blocking more than 1 million hectares of solar and wind farms in 2019 and Shasta County inspectors set to vote on wind farms next month. Shasta and Humboldt counties have both rejected planned wind farms in recent years – a growing trend in the western United States as locals raise concerns about environmental damage and declining attitudes.
Many people familiar with the industry’s thinking told the Times that major solar companies are focused on building better relationships with local authorities rather than pushing for the county’s license. California Wind Power, on the other hand, said the state supports Newcom’s plan to allow developers to choose where they want to go, said Nancy Rader, director general.
The fast-paced solar and wind approval plan is supported by the International Electricity Brotherhood. Developers who have opted for a smooth process should hire union staff in project contract agreements.
“We think this duck is wisely balancing options for developers who want to go to the series and the Energy Commission, which is extremely competent and efficient,” said Mark Joseph, a lawyer representing IBEW.
Major environmental groups have not taken a stand on Newcom’s proposal to facilitate project approval, which would have removed additional layers of review – from the Coast Commission – after its removal.
But local governments are angry.
In a letter opposing the bill, the State of California Assn. County, California city councils, California rural county representatives, and California Urban League renewable energy supplies “can have a significant impact on local communities,” he said. “The approval process by the Energy Commission is too broad, it will take environmental control, it will prevent local governments from actively participating in major development projects in their region and could lead to more disputes,” he said.
Two ideas on this .. (1) Can the federation develop similar ideas to allow on federal lands and leave the states?
I only think of federal land, but if the Germans do not work on acres to meet their federal requirements (yes, I know the German government is very different) the Germans have draft laws to relax environmental standards.
According to the “Coastal Wind Act”, Germany’s 13 largest states should allocate 1.4% of their territorial waters to 2026 naval power. A.D. By 2032, they should reach 1.8-2.2% of their targets on their own.
Bavaria, known for its anti-wind policy, owns 1.8% of the land for coastal winds.
States must have their own plans based on consistent rules and modeling by the federal government, but they can follow individual distance laws if this percentage does not interfere.
However, if enough space is not available for wind turbines, wind power investors will be allowed to build new turbines for areas that did not exist before due to distance regulations. The three cities of Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen must use 0.5% of their area for wind power.
While the government is satisfied that it is solving long-term planning and legal barriers to wind power, industry representatives have strongly criticized genetic conservation regulations by creating new legal guarantees that will prolong the process.
(2) Who determines what NIMBY is and what local justice is, and by what special criteria?
If it is legal to remove well-carried gas generators from the community on Redondo Beach, is it legal for low-heeled local governments not to look for wind turbines?
