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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...

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...