More Info Here:
Desal Legislation
Follow Us:
FEDERAL BILLS
House Bill 1071
Desalination Drought Protection Act of 2005 (HR 1071), sponsored
by CA Congresswoman Susan Davis of the 53rd Congressional
District (which includes the city of San Diego), will accelerate the
development of both seawater and brackish water desalination
projects by establishing a new performance based, competitive
grant program within the Dept. of Energy that will provide energy
assistance grants to eligible desalination projets. High energy
costs pose the greatest financial burden associated with
desalination. In fact, nearly 40% of the cost of desalinated water is
a result of energy costs. H.R.1071 will provide energy assistance
grants of $0.62 cents per thousand gallons of desalination water
produced and sold to competitively selected projects for a limited
term of ten years. Simply, this bill would authorize the Secretary of
Energy to make incentive payments of $200 million for the next ten
years for water produced, and up to $10 million for research and
development. This money will come out of the budget for
renewable energy.
We opposed this bill and it did not pass.
Senate Bill 1860
Energy -Water Efficiency Technology, Research, Development and
Transfer Program Act of 2005, co-sponsored by New Mexico
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D), this bill would amend the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce energy
demand through improved use of reclaimed water. it directs the
Dept. of Energy to provide competitive grants to entities with
expertise in energy-water supply technology projects. This only
serves to put new technology into place via commercial
relationships, and its missing key policy analysis and systems
analysis.
We opposed this bill and it did not pass.
House Bill 1071
Desalination Drought Protection Act of 2005 (HR 1071), sponsored
by CA Congresswoman Susan Davis of the 53rd Congressional
District (which includes the city of San Diego), will accelerate the
development of both seawater and brackish water desalination
projects by establishing a new performance based, competitive
grant program within the Dept. of Energy that will provide energy
assistance grants to eligible desalination projets. High energy
costs pose the greatest financial burden associated with
desalination. In fact, nearly 40% of the cost of desalinated water is
a result of energy costs. H.R.1071 will provide energy assistance
grants of $0.62 cents per thousand gallons of desalination water
produced and sold to competitively selected projects for a limited
term of ten years. Simply, this bill would authorize the Secretary of
Energy to make incentive payments of $200 million for the next ten
years for water produced, and up to $10 million for research and
development. This money will come out of the budget for
renewable energy.
We opposed this bill and it did not pass.
Senate Bill 1860
Energy -Water Efficiency Technology, Research, Development and
Transfer Program Act of 2005, co-sponsored by New Mexico
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D), this bill would amend the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce energy
demand through improved use of reclaimed water. it directs the
Dept. of Energy to provide competitive grants to entities with
expertise in energy-water supply technology projects. This only
serves to put new technology into place via commercial
relationships, and its missing key policy analysis and systems
analysis.
We opposed this bill and it did not pass.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
STATE BILLS
Assembly Bill 1552
This bill would carve out a specific exception from the Policy for a
single stakeholder – the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power – and encourage others to seek their own special
exceptions in a gut-and-amend process that is the antithesis of the
careful public discussions and independent evaluations that led to
the final Policy’s adoption. AB 1552 would overturn specific State
Water Board decisions on how to count flow reductions (resulting
in situations where no action at all could be counted as
compliance), would change the definition of a “feasible” action to
be inconsistent with the applicable and definition in the technology-
forcing Clean Water Act, and would extend the deadline for
compliance by over a decade to at least 2031, and perhaps
indefinitely. AB 1552’s overturning of the OTC Policy for a single
stakeholder is not only ill-advised, it is unnecessary. State Water
Board staff and NGOs have been working closely with LADWP to
identify a compliance path, and this work is ongoing. Read more
here.
This bill is currently being voted on before session ends. It may
be neglected in committee and be handled administratively.
Assembly Bill 1552
This bill would carve out a specific exception from the Policy for a
single stakeholder – the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power – and encourage others to seek their own special
exceptions in a gut-and-amend process that is the antithesis of the
careful public discussions and independent evaluations that led to
the final Policy’s adoption. AB 1552 would overturn specific State
Water Board decisions on how to count flow reductions (resulting
in situations where no action at all could be counted as
compliance), would change the definition of a “feasible” action to
be inconsistent with the applicable and definition in the technology-
forcing Clean Water Act, and would extend the deadline for
compliance by over a decade to at least 2031, and perhaps
indefinitely. AB 1552’s overturning of the OTC Policy for a single
stakeholder is not only ill-advised, it is unnecessary. State Water
Board staff and NGOs have been working closely with LADWP to
identify a compliance path, and this work is ongoing. Read more
here.
This bill is currently being voted on before session ends. It may
be neglected in committee and be handled administratively.