Capital Buildings In California To Be Powered 100% By Renewables

Capital buildings in the state (or is it a country now?) of California (in Sacramento) will soon be powered 100% by renewable energy, according to recent reports. Plans are also now in the works for all government buildings in the state to make the transition to 100% renewables in the near future as well.

The move by the state’s Department of General Services to make the transition follows shortly after Governor Jerry Brown’s plans for a 50% renewable portfolio standard made it through the California legislature.

California State Capital in Sacramento - photo by wiki/User:Coolcaesar, CC by SA 3.0, en Wikipedia

The new plans will be put into action via Sacramento municipal utility SMUD’s Greenergy program — which sources electricity from local solar, wind, biomass, hydroelectric, etc, facilities. Amongst these facilities/projects, the contract to power the capital buildings with only renewables will result in electricity being sourced from the Stone Lakes solar energy project, amongst others.

The 3-year contract will see the Department of General Services purchase an estimated 108 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity generated via renewable energy projects, thus offsetting a significant amounts of carbon emissions and other fossil fuel associated pollution.

108 GWh is roughly equivalent to the electricity use of 3,000 or so area homes during the 3-year contract period. As a result of the new contract, the Department of General Services will now be the biggest renewable energy purchaser amongst the various local governments of California.

Worth noting here is that plan will call for roughly $216,000 in costs a year, costs which will be carried by taxpayers, it should be remembered. Not that there isn’t taxpayer support in the state for such things, but it should still be noted.

James Ayre

James Ayre's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy.

James Ayre has 4830 posts and counting. See all posts by James Ayre

0 0 votes
Article Rating
6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael G
Michael G
8 years ago

Your comment “Worth noting here is that plan will call for roughly $216,000 in costs a year” is frankly incredible. That number needs to be explained.

My own local CA town pays about $600K for electricity for it’s civic center buildings alone. How can the entire state of CA get by on $216K? And is that money more than they pay for electricity now? What gives?

Kyle Field
Kyle Field
Reply to  Michael G
8 years ago

That was exactly what I honed in on. Is this incremental cost vs what they were paying for electricity? Is that the total cost of the solar contract? More data please.

The article also states that “Department of General Services will now be the biggest renewable energy purchaser amongst the various local governments of California.”…is this article only about this dept or the whole govt?

Michael G
Michael G
Reply to  Kyle Field
8 years ago

“General Services Agency” is the name for a govt. entity that contracts for or buys office space and supplies (from paper clips to electricity) for all the other govt. agencies. That way everyone else can focus on what they do best and let GSA take care of getting them the basic equipment. GSA in turn, has tremendous buying power since it is buying for the entire govt. and can use that to get the best deals.

Frank
Frank
8 years ago

Hope they add some car chargers to that basic equipment. Help tame the duck.

Nicholas Littlejohn
Reply to  Frank
8 years ago

quack!

Larry
Larry
8 years ago

“Worth noting here is that plan will call for roughly $216,000 in costs a year” ? Is this cost over and above their current electricity consumption costs? If so, what is the reason for a higher cost for a less expensive source of electricity generation than fossil fired production?