California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger often mentions his goal of improving California business climate. It was a major factor behind his historical entry into the Governor’s office during the recall of Governor Davis. It seems as if some in the regulatory bureaucracy would do well to listen more attentively to what the Governor and the public are saying about the business climate in California, especially with respect to electrical energy. During recent adoption of the state’s “Integrated Energy Policy Report” (IEPR), California Energy Commissioners are penalizing one utility (Southern California Edison; SCE) for accomplishing more (and faster) than the state wants regarding development of renewable energy. Current state law includes a ‘renewable portfolio standard’ that requires private utilities (SCE, PG&E and SDG&E) to produce 20% of their electrical energy by 2017, with an annual increase of at least 1%. The legislative mandate has been ‘accelerated’ by the CEC, CPUC and Governor’s office to move up to 2010 through various policy pronouncements and goals. Interestingly, SCE has pretty much already met even the accelerated goal (although some smart-alecky ratepayers have begun spelling it “gaol”) in large measure through their own aggressive, and long standing, pursuit of renewable technologies. However that’s apparently not enough for some of the regulators, as evidenced in the IEPR. The report recommends passage of legislation requiring all retail suppliers of electricity to meet a 20 percent eligible renewables goal by 2010. But it sets the bar even higher for SCE. “The state should enact legislation that allows the California Public Utilities Commission to require SCE to purchase at least 1 percent of additional renewable energy per year between 2006 and 2020,” the report states, even if the overall 20% is exceeded. SCE already procures nearly one fifth of the nation’s renewables. Commissioner John Geesman, presiding member of the IEPR committee, said he did not think an additional 1 percent per year was unreasonable. “It is wrong to look at this as a question of equity or a burden to your company,” Geesman said. “Lowering the bar for Edison would be akin to lowering the basketball hoop to eight feet for the tallest players.” Perhaps, but putting the hoop at 13 feet only for Yao Ming doesn’t make for fair competition either.