A Look Forward, a Look Back on Renewable Energy Progress in California

December 23rd, 2010

As Jerry Brown is sworn in as California’s new governor today, renewable energy advocates should feel good about the future and prospects for continued progress in 2011. Outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was certainly a big supporter of clean energy, but it was Brown who helped jump-start the entire renewable energy industry in California in the early ’80s. Having him back in the driver’s seat should be comforting news. As CEERT executive director V. John White pointed out in a recent story in The Sacramento Bee, Brown now has the opportunity to finish the job he started three decades ago.

No doubt California is a much different state today than it was when he was the nation’s youngest governor, as the San Francisco Chronicle points out. The San Jose Mercury News also predicts that the past may be prologue to the future. And if that is indeed the case, look for Brown to challenge the status quo in unpredictable ways, including his approach to breaking regulatory  bottlenecks and doing more with less. During his campaign, Brown announced a “clean energy plan” that he said could add 20,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity, creating two to three times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels.

Looking into the crystal ball for 2011, the effort to place into statute California’s public policy of purchasing 33% of the state’s electricity from renewable energy resources has once again gained new life with the reintroduction of Senator Simitian’s RPS bill,this time as SB 23. Can Jerry Brown succeed where Gov. Schwarzenegger failed, in terms of gaining consensus on the nitty gritty details of how best California can implement a public policy already guiding public policy?  Only time will tell, but a new year tends to breed optimism. Given the potential for green jobs in today’s depressed economy, it is clear that the California Legislature will be on the hot seat as Governor Brown attempts to get things moving in Sacramento.

Looking back, 2010 was a year of significant progress according to the renewable energy scorecard, though numerous clouds linger on the horizon. Technologies such as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and large-scale concentrated solar energy generation showed historic growth, especially in California, and attracted investment from utilities such as NRG  and many others. Fuel Cell technology finally gained real traction in California, as reported this month by the LA Times

In wind power, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) was pleased with the recent extension of the tax credits for wind energy, but is alarmed by the growing challenge in competition from China.  China is now the largest wind-power market in the world in terms of installed capacity, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Its market is growing at 116 percent a year, compared with 40 percent in the U.S., according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. In response, the US government recently charged China at the World Trade Organization with unfairly subsidizing its wind industry.

While Congress failed to pass a federal Renewable Electricity Standard or carbon regulation in 2010, it did extend the renewable cash grants program in December, a program that was instrumental in stimulating several new renewable projects during the recent economic recession. GreenTech Media reports that without this one-year extension, the U.S. renewable energy industry would have slipped into a severe slump. The same tax package, however, also included fresh subsidies for development of “liquid coal” technologies, a highly questionable compromise reflecting the new political expediency in Washington, DC given the November election results.

Nevertheless, even this new line of subsidies will not be enough to save much of the US coal industry, as a recent story published on Grist shows, with a spate of operating coal plants likely to close due to new regulations finally being enforced by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The less coal we burn, the greater the opportunity for wind, solar, geothermal and biomass plants to fill the void.  Unfortunately, as we noted in our recent posting on Shale Gas, the biggest beneficiary of utility fuel shifting away from coal seems likely to be natural gas.

EPA Rules May Force Large-Scale Coal Plant Closures

One of the greatest gifts Santa left under the Christmas tree for the nation’s renewable energy industry last year was the federal Department of Interior’s federal permit streamlining effort, which resulted in several new Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects being permitted in southern California. All told, some 680,000 acres of federal land in Western states such as California, Nevada and Arizona were identified as being suitable for large-scale solar power generation, reports the Wall Street Journal. And the federal loan guarantees offered by the federal Department of Energy have also been instrumental in the success of CSP projects, including Abengoa, the world’s largest parabolic trough project.

Another big development in 2010 for accelerating adoption of cleaner power sources was the “cap and trade” carbon trading system approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) this past month and will go into effect in 2012. This historic first step in establishing a regulatory framework to swap dirty for clean electricity supplies — as well as transportation fuels – still has many unknown operating details to be hashed out. Some critics claim that what was missing from CARB’s program may be just as important as what was in it. At present, CEERT has a number of concerns and will continue to carefully evaluate the system’s implementation.

The best advice for now? Proceed with caution! Among the critical details is whether utilities are required to invest the full value of emission allowances they receive for free into programs such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and rebates to low-income customers, all programs that can help meet AB 32′s carbon reduction goals.

Share

California Paves the Way for Electric Vehicles

December 14th, 2010

As if the world needed further evidence of California’s environmental exceptionalism, the state  is being closely watched as the proving ground for the next technological surge in the battle for clean air: The electrification of personal transportation.  

Thanks to investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency policies, California has significantly reduced pollution from its electricity sector and is on course to steadily reduce it further over the next two decades.  The next best opportunities to achieve climate emissions reductions exist in the transportation sector, which generates roughly 40% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.  The state air board has already innovated a system for trading zero emission vehicle credits, as discussed in this LA Times column by Michael Hiltzik

 In stark contrast to the dense policy fog descending over Washington, DC, California voters last month sent unequivocal support mandates to their state policy makers and regulators to continue their efforts to curb carbon and spark clean technologies in energy and transportation industries. In fact, 64% of those asked in a recent Field Research Corp. poll support the efforts by the California Air Resources Board to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It is this grassroots policy consensus that makes California the logical home of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. As a recent Associated Press story claimed, stakeholder engagement groups such as the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Collaborative Council (of which CEERT is a key organizer) are helping California develop the nation’s first infrastructure to support widespread adoption of these cleaner cars. An alliance of automakers, utilities, regulators and clean-air advocates, the Council released an ambitious plan this past Monday to make California a national leader in accommodating electric vehicles by making charging terminals available in thousands of homes, office buildings, shopping malls and other sites within the next decade.

The announcement comes on the heels of several other promisinjg signs that the entire U.S. is taking steps to wean the country off of polluting and often imported fossil fuels. For example, several corporations — Staples, FedEx, Pepsi and AT&T – have all recently launched PHEV truck programs for their commercial fleets. While these vehicles may represent an initial $30,000 premium, paybacks can be less than 4 years given the savings accrued from not needing to replace brakes as often, or to change oil and transmission fluids, and other ongoing maintenance expenses linked to the traditional internal combustion engine.

Along with California cities such as San Diego, other hot spots for clean electric cars are Houston, Texas — home of the nation’s oil and natural gas industry — and Detroit, our Motor City in Michigan. According to Pike Research, 80% of near-term charging for our plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be in our homes, though retailers such as Best Buy are working with firms such as Ecotality to feature public charging stations at all of their outlets within the next few years.

Share

EPA regs may shut 70,000 MW of US coal plants -FBR

December 13th, 2010

* EPA regs could cost power sector $80 billion

* Retirements depend on gas prices, severity of rules

* Regulated utilities and coal generators may benefit

NEW YORK, Dec 13 (Reuters) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations could cost the industry more than $80 billion and force up to 70,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plants to retire over the next several years, investment bank FBR Capital Markets aid in a research report Monday.

Before even considering the potential effect of possible government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming, the report forecast coal retirements would likely reach 45,000 MW, including 12,000 MW already announced.

But, FBR, of Arlington, Virginia, said the number of retirements could vary between 30,000 MW and 70,000 MW depending in part on natural gas prices and the severity of proposed emissions reduction rules.

FBR said utilities would likely install emissions control equipment in larger coal plants, representing about 60,000 MW of capacity, and replace smaller units with natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines.

One megawatt powers about 1,000 U.S. homes.

While the EPA regulations will cost billions, regulated utilities are poised to benefit from the stricter rules.

(complete article)

(Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Share

Shale Gas Smackdown: Baron Rothschild vs Lord Keynes vs Mother Earth

November 17th, 2010

To Baron Rothschild is attributed the market player’s golden rule that “the time to buy is when blood is running in the streets”, which goes far to explain why so many major oil companies have been buying up smaller shale gas producing companies lately, even as the price for US natural gas has seemingly dropped anchor at multi-year lows. 

This week, Chevron (CVX) announced that it plans to acquire Atlas Energy (ATLS) for $3.2 billion ($4.3 billion including debt).  Just last December Exxon Mobil launched the trend by swallowing XTO Energy, the formerly-800-pound-anchovy in natural gas from shale rock extraction technology, for $31 billion.  Recently, the Chinese national oil company CNOOC struck a deal with Cheasapeak Energy, ostensibly to learn more about shale gas extraction technology. Royal Dutch Shell bought East Resources for $4.7 billion, giving it access to 650,000 acres in the Marcellus Shale, the so-called ”Versailles of natural gas fields“.  The Marcellus field undermines virtually the entire states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with significant incursions into Ohio, New York, and Virginia (which may make it a kind of gene marker for purple state politics).

National Geographic devoted an entire special report on the topic, featuring Pennsyvania as a state looking toward this technology as a way of lifting itself out of its current economic doldrums, though the City of Pittsburgh recently banned shale gas drilling. 

Of course playing contrarian commodity trends is an inherently risky wager against supply and demand fundamentals. The game changing factor has been shale rock hydrolic fracturing technology  (so-called “fracking”). Reports in the gas E&P industry press, like this one from Rigzone, suggest that this new technology is not just a shot in the arm but has changed the fundamentals of global gas supply production.  Accordingly, North America temporarily at least finds itself with more natural gas than needed.  That supply overhang has been blamed for XTO and Atlas falling into the arms of their larger rivals (albeit at sweet premiums to their market values), the latest victims of Lord Keynes’ keen observation that “markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”   

The acquisitions by the oil majors may be explained by the law of the fish logic that at current depressed prices it is cheaper to buy up the natural gas reserves painstakingly developed by smaller players than it is to develop your own.  With their balance sheets bloated with cash from sustained high world oil prices, the oil majors may find  these investments in natural gas reserves, even at current prices, compare favorably with other available investment alternatives.

The kicker for why major oil companies may be willing to make a bet on the depressed natural gas market is that they project changes in the demand fundamentals of natural gas.   What might be the catalyst for such a fundamental change?

The answer may lie in the mass migration of America’s coal-burning utilities to cleaner-burning gas.  The potential effect on the price of natural gas from fuel switching by utilities from coal to gas was explored in an article published in the NY Times back in July 2008.  The current shale gas supply jolt has not only held down the spot price of natural gas, it has also reportedly made long-term fixed-price deals attractive to both gas producers and industrial users, like electric utilities.  Long term contracts would combat one of the major economic objections to natural gas: price volatility. As the head of Devon Energy observed about gas price volatility: “The peaks are politically unattractive, and the valleys are economically unattractive.”

Near miraculously, fixed long-term moderate gas prices are the ideal conditions required to gain public confidence in the economics of building of natural gas fired power plants instead of other low-cost fuel generation technologies, like coal or renewable energy facilities.  The decision on what power technology to build is a once-in-a-generation choice.  Once the decision to make an investment in a particular power technology has been made the ratepayers are on the hook to provide a healthy return on the utility’s investment, regardless of how expensive its operation may later turn out to be.

Beyond simple economics, there are of course many environmental objections to building more fossil fueled electrical generation plants, starting with the combustion process itself, which emits both toxic and climate affecting emissions.  Shale gas production itself is extremely harmful for the environment.  Recent protests in Arkansas and elsewhere show that a public firestorm is brewing to the health risks of this  new bid to extend our fossil fuel energy future. Fracking involves extracting natural gas from shale below the earth’s surface by a process using high pressure water, sand and a toxic brew of chemicals — perhaps up to 900 different toxins — that are part of a proprietary special blend. Globally, this fracking technique has been linked to both air and water pollution, increased cancer rates and neurological disease, especially with children. A Congressional investigation into the environmental effects of fracking by a committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) may be one casualty of the recent midterm election defeat suffered by Democrats.

In terms of economic development, investments in any fossil fuel option actually creates far fewer jobs than equivalent investments in clean renewable energy resources.  The potential for jobs from renewable energy investment is a major theme in CEERT’s work (see our home page for links to green jobs research).

What about the claim that with shale rock we have an abundance of natural gas?  Production of natural gas from U.S. shale formations is still in its infancy, contributing only about 10% of total domestic natual gas production today, roughly the same amount that comes from coal seams. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) shale gas data goes back only to 2007. Natural gas production from shale fields in 2008 was 2 trillion cubic feet with proven reserves at 32 trillion cubic feet. At the current rate of production, the reserves would be gone in only 16 years, and shale gas would be a flash in the pan.  

At the end of the day what seems most ironic in this debate over shale gas supply is that the chief impetus to coal-to-gas switching is not the supply or price of gas,  but rather the pressure to reduce global carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of mining and burning coal. So the question facing us is how clean is clean enough?   If  switching from coal to another finite carbonaceous fuel would yield some improvement in CO2 emissions, it stands to reason that a more comprehensive solution –moving to sustainable clean technologies like wind, solar, and geothermal — would be even better.

Share

Fuel Cells at World Trade Center a Harbinger of Growth in Self-generation?

November 10th, 2010

The idea of relying more on distributed generation sources located at the point of power consumption is an idea that to most people is mainly associated with solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, particularly in California, home of more than 60% of the nation’s solar PV.

But fuel cells — a distributed generation technology that can run on a variety of fuels and which can provide steady 24/7 power — has lagged behind solar PV as well as small wind turbines. A high profile installation of fuel cells at the World Trade Center, however, may help generate new interest among policy makers and investors for a technology that has long been hyped as part of the hydrogen economy. The fuel cells are one example of ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce the environmental impacts of power generation.

New Fuel Cells to Power Rebuilt WTC Towers

Previously, The World Trade Center took in huge amounts of water from the Hudson River, which impacted local fish and other riparian habitats. The new complex will include a smaller hydroelectric facility and instead will generate up to 30% of its electricity from the fuel cells, which use a chemical process to convert natural gas to electricity.

A key advantage of fuel cells, solar PV and small wind turbines is that they produce clean power on site without the need to build transmission lines, which often face delays. However there is no single silver bullet solution to all of our collective carbon reduction and economic development needs.  Meeting those will also require increased reliance upon both large-scale bulk renewable energy plants, such as off-shore wind off the Atlantic Coast and Concentrated Solar Power plants in the southwestern deserts of California, Arizona and Nevada. (please see the previous blog post). Yet self-generation by large consumers will play an increasingly important role.

Another high-profile  fuel cell application in Chino, California shows that these generators can also run on renewable fuels such as biogas, and contribute greatly to cleaning up the CO2 from farm animal waste. FuelCell Energy’s recently-announced 2.8 MW installation for the Inland Empire Utilites Agency is the largest of its kind to be installed at a wastewater treatment plant.

While hydrogen was once seen as a promising alternative fuel solution to our energy challenges, since it can be used to generate both electricity and serve as a liquid transportation fuel, California’s efforts to develop hydrogen infrastructure have fallen behind schedule, and the strategy once seen as a key initiative of outgoing Gov. Schwarzenegger is being reconsidered. Fuel cells appear to be the best fit for hydrogen. Along with stationary applications such as this current project at the World Trade Center and at the wastewater treatment facility in the Inland Empire, hydrogen could still play a role in cleaning up the transportation sector. As of late, however, there has been greater interest among investors and inventors have recently focused on plug-in electric hybrids. These cleaner hybrid electric cars would not only clean up California’s carbon emissions in the transportation sector — the source of 40% of California’s carbon footprint, according to the California Air Resources Board – but could also be used as storage devices to provide services to both homeowners and the larger electric grid.

Share