‘Nothing Will Be Protected’: Why California Environmentalists Oppose Green Energy Bill

Energy companies, racing to meet the state’s ambitious clean energy goals, have asked lawmakers to ease California’s most important environmental law so they can upgrade their transmission lines, including those in state parks.

Author of the bill, member of the Assembly Eduardo GarciaTo tackle climate change, energy companies must be able to connect solar fields and wind turbines to a modernized power grid more quickly and without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

“Achieving these goals will require an unprecedented buildout of this infrastructure that will provide reliable, renewable energy to electrify our homes, commercial buildings and transportation,” said Garcia, a Democrat from Coachella. informed the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committeelast week. “And that will require bold moves in the political space.”

Garcia’s Supporters Bill 3238which is heard today by the Senate Committee on Environmental Qualityargue that streamlining the state permitting process for grid modernization is urgently needed because California’s Breakthrough Plan Ending dependence on fossil fuels by 2045 would increase electricity consumption by up to 68%. put a lot of pressure on the state’s power grid, which is already prone to blackouts. They say large-scale grid upgrades regularly take five or more years to plan and build because of the lengthy environmental impact assessment process.

But major environmental groups are fighting the bill to overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act. The debate is emblematic of a broader tension plaguing California officials and the country as they try to launch more clean energy projects in the face of the climate crisis.

The same policies that have helped environmental groups fight developers and polluters in the past are now often used to delay energy projects needed to transition the country — and California — away from dirty fossil fuels.

Environmentalists fear that expedited environmental reviews will result in utilities trampling delicate landscapes in their rush to expand the grid. They are particularly concerned about state parks that currently contain smaller poles and power lines that utilities would like to turn into massive, unsightly power towers.

“We know how important it is for our state and our planet to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible,” said Kim Delfino, a lobbyist for Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society. he told the commission“However, efficiency should not equate to a weakening of basic environmental safeguards.”

CEQA reform is not easy

The opposition to Garcia’s bill, which has 12 co-sponsors from both parties, also illustrates the fierce resistance to even minor reforms to California’s Environmental Quality Act — something that has embarrassed lawmakers and governors for years.

Former Governor Jerry Brown once called the reform bill “the Lord’s work” but failed to enact significant reforms. His successor, Gov. Gavin Newson, made cutting green tape delays a priority and tried to tackle CEQA as well. Last year, his office backed a package of bills and created a “strike team” to expedite CEQA.

CEQA reform advocates say that since it was signed into law by former Gov. Ronald Reagan, the law, which was intended to protect the environment from harmful pollution and large-scale industrial development, has now been routinely used to block or delay for years much-needed projects, ranging from cheap apartments Down green energy infrastructure.

Currently, CEQA (pronounced “si-kwa”) requires developers to pay for an environmental impact report, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take years to complete.

The analyses, sometimes thousands of pages of impenetrable legal and scientific jargon, must consider a range of potential harms to wildlife and people. These include pollution, construction, noise, urban degradation and the impact of the project on recreation. The reports must offer a range of alternatives that will mitigate any potential harm.

If the agency approves the report and moves forward with the project, the law allows environmental groups, local organizations and other opponents to review the document for flaws that can be used in lawsuits. Those lawsuits can take years to get to trial.

Garcia’s office said CEQA reviews have become a major obstacle to modernizing the state’s power grid. His office cited one 117-mile power line project in Southern California that took officials five years to review. It included an 11,000-page impact report that evaluated more than 100 “alternatives” for the project. The same project required 70 permits from more than two dozen different agencies.

Are state parks in danger?

Garcia’s bill is a response to a settlement reached last year between the state’s three largest investor-owned utilities — Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric — and some environmentalists and clean energy groups.

The settlement called for changes to the way the California Public Utilities Commission issues permits for electric transmission lines. The bill would incorporate the settlement’s recommendation to make the commission the lead agency for issuing CEQA permits for electric grid infrastructure projects.

The commission would be required to complete the review within 270 days, which Garcia’s office said would shorten the entire process by up to two years.

Instead of having other state and local agencies conduct separate CEQA reviews of the entire length of a power line project, they would be required to conduct the review only for the section that crosses their jurisdiction. Garcia’s office said that would eliminate up to three years of delays.

Garcia told the commission last week the rules would eliminate duplication of red tape “while ensuring that an environmental impact assessment can be conducted.”

But a key point of contention for environmentalists is how the bill would exempt power grid upgrades from CEQA requirements on publicly owned lands, particularly California parks.

Garcia’s bill would eliminate CEQA reviews for infrastructure upgrades, which require a utility to take over public land immediately adjacent to an existing “right-of-way” already used for power lines and other energy infrastructure. His office said the actual construction of new transmission towers and other electrical equipment on public land would still require CEQA review.

Environmentalists like Brianna Fordem, executive director of the Anza-Borrego Foundation, fear the modernization will destroy huge swaths of state parks.

Ford he told the committee last week that Anza-Borrego Desert State Park in San Diego County alone has “hundreds of miles of existing road rights” that will be “the path of least resistance for hundreds of 200-foot towers that will permanently disfigure our campgrounds, hiking trails, our sacred cultural preserves, endangered wildlife habitat, dark night skies, and much more.”

“Nothing,” she said, “will be protected.”

The bill passes despite opposition

But major utilities in the state say the bill is critical to achieving the state’s clean energy goals.

“If we are truly in a climate crisis, we need to act like we are in one,” said Erica Martin of San Diego Gas & Electric he told the committee last week“The current approval process for construction of electrical infrastructure is duplicative, lengthy and expensive.”

These arguments gave momentum to the bill, despite opposition from the community.

It passed the Assembly in the spring with just one legislator, a Democratic member of the San Ramon Assembly Rebecca Bauer-Kahanvoting “no”, in accordance with Digital Democracy DatabaseAccording to her spokesman, she declined to comment.

The Senate Public Utilities and Energy Committee also passed the bill last week, with no votes against it. The Democratic chairman of the committee, Sen. Steven Bradford of Inglewoodhe said his voice was influenced by the fact that he worked for a utility company.

He is a former public relations manager for Southern California Edison, and he said he has seen environmental groups support an energy project and then “absolutely oppose” building transmission lines to make it workable. He said he has seen the same thing happen with the San Diego Gas & Electric project.

“Both of these projects have been delayed by almost five years and have added billions of dollars to their costs.” Bradford told the committee“At the same time, we set all these arbitrary goals for when we’re going to have this renewable energy, but we’re failing to build the infrastructure that’s necessary to get the energy to where it’s needed.”

This article was originally published by CalMatters Matters.

Ryan Sabalow, Specially for Daily Press

Related