Florida's renewable energy efforts have gone nowhere

Florida's renewable energy efforts have gone nowhere

The planned Babcock Ranch project near Fort Myers is trying to become the first completely solar-powered city.

Photo BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com

For a year, while the green movement was at its height, Florida environmentalists, new solar companies, utility lobbyists and state regulators spent thousands of hours trying to determine how much of the state's power supply should come from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

They did it because the Legislature in 2008 ordered them to do it. After sifting through thousands of pages of documents and sitting in lengthy workshops, the Public Service Commission sent its recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. A renewable bill passed the Senate but died in the House. The result: A year of work wasted.

Among the major victims: The much ballyhooed Babcock Ranch project, which is trying to become the first solar-powered city in the world, and thousands of construction workers who would have been hired to build new power plants.

''We are extremely disappointed,'' said Stephen Smith, head of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. ``The people of Florida should feel cheated by their legislative leadership.''

In the final days of the Legislature, the drama became intense. Gov. Charlie Crist at one point visited the House to plead for a renewable standard. When that failed, a major renewable energy producer, Florida Crystals, turned against Florida Power & Light, which was trying to craft its own solar deal. That deal died.

The renewable saga began in July 2007 when Crist asked the PSC to develop rules to make power companies produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The PSC held four workshops in 2007 attended by dozens of major environmentalists and utility representatives.

The issues were complex. Would solar and wind power cost customers more? Yes, probably, said the experts. How much more? The experts weren't certain. The PSC didn't come to any conclusions and neither did the 2008 Legislature, which debated the issue at length and then ordered the PSC to study the matter again.

Three more workshops were held. The PSC commissioned a study on the costs and potential for renewables from the Navigant consulting firm, which produced a 200-plus page document at a cost of $135,000.

FPL sparked intense debate by insisting that, instead of a renewable standard, nuclear power should be considered in a ''clean energy'' standard, because nuclear can produce huge amounts of power while emiting no greenhouse gases. Environmentalists objected, saying huge nuclear plants would eliminate any need for solar, which they much preferred.

The PSC ended up sending a 167-page report to the Legislature recommending that by 2020, 20 percent of power come from renewables, as long as it didn't increase customers' bills more than 2 percent a year. The report said the Legislature ''may wish to consider'' adding nuclear to the standard.

To support the push for renewables, a coalition was created that included major environmental groups and renewable energy companies, such as Florida Crystals, which produces electricity from sugar cane waste.

Susan Glickman, longtime environmental activist, coordinated the coalition's lobbying, serving as ``cat-herder-in-chief. . . . The entrenched utility interests have so much clout that the best chance we had was to stick together.''

In the Senate, Sen. Jim King crafted a compromise bill that included nuclear, but only up to five percentage points of the 20 percent standard. Environmentalists didn't like the nuclear provision, but King told Glickman it was the only way to get it to pass. (continued)