PROPOSAL NUMBER: 022-04
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 022-04
1. Date proposed: September 9th, 2004
Name of the sponsor: Legislative Committee:
Bruce Field
Paul Hodapp
Tanya Ishikawa
Bruce Meyer
2. PROPOSAL SUBJECT:
Endorsement of the Renewable Energy Requirement Ballot Initiative
3. FULL PROPOSAL:
The Green Party of Colorado (GPCO) endorses “Amendment 37 - Renewable Energy Requirement”, which will be on the November 2nd General Election ballot. With this endorsement, the GPCO also states its reservation with the inclusion of the term “Biomass”, which can be interpreted to mean “Biomass burning” as a renewable energy resource.
With this endorsement, the GPCO will allow its name to appear as a supporter of the initiative on websites, campaign letters, press releases, etc. The GPCO will also issue a press release stating its support.
4. BACKGROUND:
Environment Colorado and the Sierra Club filed the ballot initiative seeking to increase the use of renewable energy in Colorado. The initiative is similar to H.B. 1273, which failed to pass the State Legislature. In a 2003 survey, 82 percent of Coloradoans said they would like to see renewables as the focus for generating new power.
This ballot initiative proposes the following:
1. Defines what resources can be used to generate renewable energy
- solar
- wind
- geothermal
- hydroelectricity from 10 megawatt or less generators
- hydrogen fuel cells
- biomass (agricultural crops and urban wood waste byproducts, animal wastes, and methane)
2. It requires the design, placement, and management of renewable energy generators to minimize environmental impacts.
3. It sets requirements for the amount of electricity that must come from renewable energy sources for utilities with 40,000 or more customers
- 3% of retail sales in electricity by 2007
- 6% by 2011
- 10% by 2015
4. At least 4% of the required amount must be generated by solar electrical generators (i.e. PV, Photovoltaic) at customer facilities
5. The utility must rebate to customers $2 min. per watt up to 100 kilowatts max. for the installation of the generators
6. It requires the utility to “bank” excess home generated electricity for a year and then pay the customer for it
7. A utility can earn 50% on the profit of its RE investments if they have a net economic benefits to customers
8. $0.50 increase per month per customer in fees for investment in renewable energy
9. A system of renewable energy credits will be created to allow trading between utilities
10. This initiative will become statutory law, and may be altered by the legislature.
GPCO Council proposal 019-04 asked the GPCO to oppose this initiative.
It failed to pass on a vote of 5 Yes / 16 No.
5. JUSTIFICATION/GOALS:
The goal in supporting this initiative is to promote Renewable Energy creation, improve air quality, and the reduce our dependence on oil and coal. By endorsing this initiative, the GPCO will join a larger progressive movement that has worked for passage of Renewable Energy regulations.
6. PROS AND CONS:
Pro / Con of officially endorsing this initiative
————————————————-
Pro:
1. By endorsing this initiative, the GPCO joins a larger progressive movement that is trying to promote responsible energy policy.
2. Passage of this initiative gets sensible energy policy past the lobbyist and money controlled legislature
3. The initiative will most likely create jobs and increase the tax base of rural counties.
4. Because this is statutory law, it can be improved on without requiring a ballot initiative.
5. If this initiative fails, the chances of passing Renewable energy legislation in the near future will be slim.
6. Because Colorado’s population and energy requirements are continuing to grow, not passing this initiative will almost guarantee the building of coal, natural gas and/or power plants.
Con:
1. This initiative includes Biomass as a resource for Renewable energy. This may subsidize large Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs), the burning of urban wood from construction, and the development of Municipal solid waste incinerators.
2. The level of required Renewable energy needs to be higher.
3. The price for “banking” energy is below market cost.
4. The tradable credit system will provide a potential loop holes on actual R.E. amounts required.
5. This is for Utilities over 40,000 customers only; should include all Colorado utility companies, (it was originally written with utilities with over 10,000 )
6. 50% extra profit for Utility just to use RE appears to be too high and unfair for the Users.
7. Alternatives to the proposal
1) Do not support
2) Support, but do not allow name use
3) Actively try to defeat
8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES:
Supporting website
http://www.environmentcolorado.org
http://environmentcolorado.org/envcoenergy.asp?id2=13672&id3=DOenergy&id4=FS&