I'm an ardent enviromentalist, but I part company with them over their silly argument hyower doesn't satisfy our carbon free goals. However, I'd part company with SB 100 if it allows new dams to qualify for clean energy credits. We can't fill the dams we already have most years, so the notion of building more dams to capture water in our arid climate is equally as silly as saying hyower isn't clean energy.
Keith - I respect your opinion. Here's another view that you still may not agree with but at least you seem willing to explore. Allow old dams because California doesn't know what a NEW dam is. The old ones were built with the precipice of renewable. Then the legislature and the solar & wind lobby made the rules. Seems like a waste that local ratepayers need to pay for out-of-state energy at an inflated price so that it complies with a state mandate when they were covered by the dam they had already paid for - BUT THAT's POLITICS! And that's called LOBBYING. Consider this - if we had more dams for STORAGE - that is the key word - we would even out the cyclical nature better than the feast-or-famine mentality we have. We have already sent many Lake Shasta's (8 million acre feet) to the ocean this year and we could have parked that water for the next drought. FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Tom Orvis I did write we should grandfather existing dams in our green energy goals not new ones. The Sierra watershed is a California resource that belongs to all of us from the mountain peaks to the delta and bay. We are responsible for maintaining a clean system that's ecologically sound. We must face the fact our water policies were built on the heels of the Little Ice Age when we were flush with water and need to redesign the policies. We are foolishly allowing far too many irrigated agreage that should have remained dryland farming or pasture. I'll send some photos to you on FB