Skip to main content

Lobbyists As Big As a Solar Panel

usa_monument_valley_arizona We generally have no beef with the lobbying class, whether on the federal or state level. Legislators have to deal with a tremendous number of complex issues and lobbyists are one way (admittedly among many ways) to get up to speed on an issue.

Politicians are not morons: they know NEI prefers nuclear energy solutions, that Microsoft does not promote WordPerfect and that Sierra Club makes the best case for its environmental interests that it can. The trick is to balance them all out and, of course, to have opinions of their own and to visit with their constituents.

---

Here’s the thing:

House Bill 2701 was killed two days after hearing from several solar companies, including Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd., which threatened to abandon plans to locate a factory in Goodyear.

Suntech is not yet a constituent (it’s a Chinese company) so has to qualify as a lobbyist, yet was able to make the economic case that going forward with this bill was ill-advised. So what did House bill 2701 do?

The bill was seen as a potential showdown with the Arizona Corporation Commission, which had set standards requiring state utilities get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2025. Provisions included the classification of nuclear power as a renewable.

Solar industry officials said the bill had the potential to gut the industry in the state. Other companies protesting the bill were First Solar and Arizona Public Service Co.

The last named company is the local electric utility. Presumably, part of the fear is that if nuclear energy was allowed into the renewable standard, one nuclear plant stood to gobble up all of that 15%, freeing utilities from using solar energy. Why they would want to be free of that (in Arizona of all places!), or why Arizona Public Service would care one way or another, we cannot derive from the story.

We looked around a bit to see if another story explained this aspect better and found this:

Lesko's bill passed the House Government Committee on a 5-2 vote this week. It would have technically maintained the requirement for 15-percent renewable energy by 2025 but it would have classified nuclear and hydropower as renewable energy sources and allowed power companies to ignore the rule if complying would raise costs for customers.

It’s that last bit that matters. Solar energy certainly will raise costs for customers, especially if it is used to meet most of that 15% standard, so we can see a little better why solar companies didn’t want the bill.

We’re only noting this – we’re not going to get on a high-horse about rising utility rates. If the country is going to move in this direction, this is what’s going to happen – and the country is moving in this direction. We might wish Arizona would settle on nuclear energy – cheaper in the long run and uses 90% rather than 20% of its generating capacity – but fine.

"This sends a clear and united message to employers around the world — Arizona remains the premier destination for solar industries," [Ariz. Gov. Jan] Brewer said in the statement.

Well, standard schmandard. If someone gets the idea to build a nuclear energy plant in Arizona, it will be to the benefit of all Arizonans, including Suntech, whether or not it’s part of a standard and will simply push the level of emission free energy up to, say, 30%.

In the end, what can we say? Congratulations to Suntech, of course, but this legislative outcome feels a little sere, a little burnt.

Monument Valley.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin