OTHER VIEW

Commentary: California refuses to enlist clean, cheap hydropower in fight against climate change. It makes no sense

Is the cleanest, greenest electricity in the world green enough for California? For years, the people of the Northern San Joaquin Valley have been trying to get hydropower recognized for what it is: the original source of clean electricity. Our efforts have been stymied by people who feel entitled to decide what is, or isn’t, green enough.

That’s why I have begun the process of modifying our state Constitution to recognize safe, abundant, carbon-free hydropower as a reliable source of renewable energy in our fight against climate change.

I have authored Assembly Constitutional Amendment 17 to place this question before California’s voters. We’ve also begun the process of qualifying a ballot measure if the Legislature fails to act on ACA17.

At the very least, it should start an important statewide conversation.

The danger of climate change is clear. We see it in more extreme summer heat and rains that either flood or hardly fall at all.

Since 2002, California has required all electricity providers to transition from polluting sources like coal and oil to strictly “renewable” sources. For-profit companies such as PG&E and public entities like Modesto, Turlock and Merced irrigation districts, which are owned by the people living within their boundaries, all must meet the same standards.

Last summer, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing the state to using only carbon-free energy by 2045. An important milestone in SB 100 requires 60 percent of all California’s energy be generated from “renewable” sources by 2030. That’s where the law loses its way.

It classifies solar, wind and geothermal as renewable but inexplicably excludes the most well-developed renewable energy of all: hydropower. If solar and wind power were cleaner than hydro, that might make sense. But hydro is every bit as clean as solar or wind power, and produces zero emissions.

Turlock Irrigation District estimates leaving hydropower off the renewable list will cost its 100,000 customers an additional $300 million. There are two reasons for that extra cost:

First, with Central Valley temperatures exceeding 100 degrees on 10, 20 or more days per year we need more power than coastal residents to make our homes livable.

Second, if hydropower isn’t classified as renewable then the Turlock Irrigation District, and the many other utilities that depend on hydro, will have to replace it with more expensive solar-and wind-generated power.