Advanced Energy Perspectives

Three years ago, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the most restrictive wind turbine siting requirements in the nation, bringing most new wind development in the state to a standstill. Although industry leaders warned of the potential consequences, the new setback language was inserted into a budget bill – with no testimony or debate – and signed by the Governor. With nearly $4.2 billion of wind investments at stake, it’s time to roll back Ohio’s wind setback. Unfortunately, Ohio lawmakers let one opportunity to restore balance to wind siting slip away. Now, the best shot they have is a legislative vehicle full of danger for the advanced energy industry.

This is a guest post by Suzanne L. Bertin, Executive Director, Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance, an AEE state partner. To learn more about TAEBA, click here. To learn more about AEE’s nationwide coalition of state and regional partners, click here.

Then-governor Rick Perry speaks at an EV event in 2011. Photo via Flickr.

On June 12, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law SB 1731, enacting policies promoting electric and hydrogen vehicles and other advanced energy transportation technologies in the Lone Star State. In a legislative session otherwise dominated by social issues, the passage of this bill was a high point for advanced energy. At Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance (TAEBA), this was one of our priority bills, and we are glad to see Texas return to the leadership role it held until a key incentive program lapsed in 2015. Now, Texas has rejoined the 14 other states and Washington, D.C., that provide incentives for advanced vehicles.

In January, Gov. Jerry Brown declared he would seek a two-thirds vote to extend California’s cap-and-trade system to 2030. The extension to 2030 would keep in place the market-based mechanism that enables the state to reach its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals on a cost-effective basis – and send a market signal in favor of advanced energy technologies and services – while passage by two-thirds would protect the system from legal challenges claiming it is a tax, which by law requires approval by supermajority vote. Supporters and neutral observers alike agreed that was the ideal scenario for locking in cap and trade for the next decade, but there was substantial doubt that the votes were there. The idea of a two-thirds vote became even more challenging after the Governor asked the Legislature to hike the gas tax as part of a transportation package. Could he get a two-thirds vote twice in one year? Yes, he could and he did. Here’s how – and how AEE was engaged all along the way.

Time and time again, California has proven to the nation and the globe that economic and environmental goals can be achieved simultaneously. California’s longstanding record in implementing innovative policies has helped make it a world leader in the use and development of advanced energy technologies. That is why it is imperative for state lawmakers to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program to 2030. They’ll get a chance to do so next week.

Nevada’s 2017 legislative session was jam-packed with bills that will reshape the state’s energy future. The legislature passed 11 energy bills and sent them to Gov. Brian Sandoval’s desk. Of the 11, the Governor signed nine into law. The bills covered a wide range of issues and settled them in favor of advanced energy: prioritizing energy-saving resources for dispatch, setting annual energy savings goals, studying energy storage deployment, and even solving the state’s contentious net-metering policy. After this session, one thing is apparent – in Nevada, advanced energy is not a partisan issue. With a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature, Nevada is moving toward advanced energy in the name of economic development and consumer benefit. But one bill that went unsigned – and was, indeed, vetoed – by the Governor kept the Silver State off the Gold Medal stand for advanced energy leadership.