In a boost for renewable energy companies, the California Public Utilities Commission today effectively banned long-term purchases of "dirty" electricity produced by coal-fired power plants as part of the state’s fight against global warming. Most California power plants operate on lower-polluting natural gas but utilities also import power from out-of-state coal-fired plants. To help fulfill California’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, utilities and other power providers will not be permitted to buy electricity from plants whose emissions are greater than those of a gas-fired plant – 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Most coal-fired plants exceed that limit, which is an interim standard until California regulators impose a greenhouse gas emissions cap. The standard applies to investment in new power plants and contracts of five years or more. "Todays decision is an important step in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, utilities commissioner John Bohn said in a statement. Our next task is to harness the power and creativity of the marketplace to address global warming.
The move means that utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) will need to replace their coal contracts. Given the cost of constructing new natural gas plants in California, the utilities are likely to step up purchases of renewable energy from wind farms and solar power plants. California’s investor-owned utilities are already scrambling to meet a state-mandated target that 20 percent of the electricity they sell come from renewable energy sources. The new greenhouse gas standard is also likely to discourage construction of coal-fired power plants in bordering states that were counting on California as a market or source of financing.
California Bans Electricity Purchases from Coal-Fired Power Plants
January 25, 2007 by Todd Woody
Green Wombat 
I wonder if that means the environmentalists will let more nuclear power plants be built, which they have opposed for the past twenty years? California is truly the land of fruits and nuts.
Kudos to Dr. Williams! At least their not as short-sighted as the New Yorkers who spent billions of dollars building a nuclear plant and billions tearing it down without ever getting any useful energy from it.
Dr. Zino is right. In this part of the US the local rednecks have a phrase for it “let the yankees freeze.” After all the highly intellectual people of New York and California have all the answers, but too bad they do not know the questions.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. The real kicker is that now the folks in Calif. and New York are having to buy electricity (for peak demand periods) from states that were ‘unsophisticated’ enough to build nuclear plants in the first place.
it’s a shame that the recent election proposal on California’s state ballot to create a $4 billion tax on oil extraction for alternative power sources wasn’t specifically targeted toward an actual viable energy source such as Solar- Photovoltaic Cell power plant constuction.
This is dishonest in a way. No long term contracts but they will still have to buy coal power when demand is high on the spot market. They will buy megawatts off the grid. The grid just sees megawatts. It cant tell whether its from coal, nuclear, solar or whatever. In the summer when they are starting to load shed they will buy whatever they can get. Of course instead of paying $50 a megawatt under a long term contract they will be paying $250 a megawatt. The coal burners will be built and run. The other western states arent this foolish.
As one of those ‘highly intellectual’ New Yorkers (and a Californian too!), all I can say is that you may be right that we don’t always make the right choices, but at least we do something. Making an effort in the right direction no matter how many pitfalls that entails is what matters. Building nuclear plants isn’t necessarily progress; there are plenty of other highly viable alternatives (especially in sunny California) that pose much less of an environmental risk. In the end, it will probably take a mixture of it all, but I don’t see why you choose to target the Yankees and the West Coasters. Without us, where would your local economy be? By the way, CA has at least 3 nuclear plants and NY has 4. So I guess us silly intellectuals aren’t so opposed to nuclear energy afterall.
Perhaps now Plasma based power plants can be looked as seriously valuable. Incineration is the problem with coal, not coal itself. With plasma, the temperature is so high that the molecules do not burn, they dissolve (disassociate) into simple non toxic componants (Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, etc. and heat) NO complex furons, toxins or other leachates or ashes need be released. A non leachable EPA approved slag useful for road building, cement, drywall , landscape fill and other construction jobs is also produced as a minor by product of the process.
Nuclear is not needed. Garbage, in addition to or substitued for coal, can also be pyrolized into energy producng fuel laden steam that converts easily into methanol or electricity. All of those used tires that are piling up can produce energy using the same process as a safe coal replacement (albiet with fewer BTUs per ton than coal).
Multiple benefits can be derived easily from plasma technologies. Old coal plants can be retrofitted with the technology to eliminate ash, sulfur and other environmentally negative contirbutors. Carbon credits that are a saleable commodity can be traded, too.
Got to hand it to this group, I have not heard such exciting answers to our power problems since the brainstorming sessions of Startreck.
Let’s package these solutions and send them to to Nancy Peloshi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. It might be cold the next few winters. Don’t forget the backyard generators powered by bicycles. Those pesky teenage gangs could put their energy to productive use. Yes, I think they would be reformed after about 20 hours a week of mandatory bike peddling.
Check out Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy’s international website…
There is a difference between nuclear bombs and clean, safe nuclear energy which does not produce greenhouse gases…
Renewable energy is the ultimate answer, but we need nuclear to get us there. Without nuclear, we don’t have enough time to save the planet.
Just my thoughts… thanks, dan
http://www.ecolo.org/
Do not forget the race to the moon for the Helium -3 isotope. It can be used in a ‘cold’ fusion reactor. One of which is building constructed in the South of France, Japan wanted the reactor on it’s soil but alas the French won something. There is very little Helium-3 on the planet but from studies of moon dirt and rocks, apparently there is a lot there.
This hostility to change is to be expected.
As I read the legislation, California would be able to buy electricity from coal plants in Utah as long as they lowered their CO2 emissions.
The coal-gassifications plants spew much less CO2 than the old-model coal plants.
California, I believe is the largest 8th economy in the world just by itself.
Reality is the need(current and future) for electricity can only be provided by coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. Natural gas is expensive, coal is dirty and all the hydro and wind power you could produce would not be a drop in the bucket to demand. Barring new technology the future of power can only be met by nuclear power. Dont wait too long California, your residents will be paying a premium if you don’t face reality now,,,
The toothless wonders in Calimexico are now buying power from Utah coal and will continue to do so. Its no different then the non binding anti-war resolutions presently being passed in congress, as I said toothless! As a Utahn, I would be happy if Califoria quit buying our power, hope they do. Our power costs will go down considerable. Also, with the new coal bio-diesel plants being built, and the processes of turning alge into bio-diesel, feeding the alge with the CO2 from the coal power plants, and with a very large portion of the worlds supply of high grade low sulpher coal, Utah is going to do very well in the future. Who’s kidding who? California will be bidding on our power for many years to come! California is full of sky high dreamers who cannot, and in a pinch willnot, walk the walk!
Thin Film Solar is the answer. Check out http://nanosolar.com/
Solar will be the cheapest, and most sustainable form of energy in the near future. (3-5 years)
A 100 by 100 mile plot of solar cells in the desert could generate enough power for the whole earth. At the current rate of Solar expansion, we could be entirely solar in the next 20-30 years. Let’s put the focus on the long-term solutions now.