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 on Facebook

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 on Facebook

* 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 on Facebook

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 on Facebook

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 on Facebook

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) sponsored an offshore wind power conference in early October in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It started off with a bang: U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed a 28-year lease for the first off-shore wind project in the U.S., to be located off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Cape Wind project, which will grow to 468 MW when completed, took 8 years to gain final project approvals.

The Obama Administration’s effort to speed up permitting of large-scale renewable projects had already borne fruit in California, Salazar said, pointing to the first two Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) to move finally forward on public lands in southern California. He cast these projects a sign that progress was being made within just one year of a federal permit streamlining initiative.

In a passionate speech, Salazar bluntly proclaimed that taking eight years to permit an offshore wind project was unacceptable. He promised that by the end of 2010, the federal government hopes “to identify places where offshore wind makes sense.” He suggested that this approach — which has been utilized by European countries such as Denmark — could help reduce the length of future permitting battles as environmental reviews could be expedited up-front, “so developer proposals will have a better chance.”

Looking at a map of the U.S., the best offshore wind resource in the U.S. is the Atlantic Coast from Georgia to Maine, with 1,256,000 (Megawatts) MW of potential development, with the best resources in the Northeast. Though the West Coast has 930,000 MW of potential, the steep drop-off renders it impossible to secure foundations for offshore wind turbines, which may reach 10 MW apiece in scale! However, trends in offshore wind deployments are to go farther from shore, and in deeper and deeper water. Floating foundation structures tethered to the ocean’s floor are under development that may allow California, Oregon and Washington to tap a significant new source of renewable energy.

Even further down the road, it might be possible to integrate wave energy resources into these offshore wind networks. Pacific Gas & Electric is conducting research on wave devices just off the Coast of Humboldt County.

Despite the hype and headlines, there was also some sobering news at the conference. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory projects that including the current PTC and other available federal incentives, the cost for offshore wind is still over 22 cents/kWh. An estimate from Europe was even higher – 26 cents/kWh.

Given the high costs of offshore wind, the rationale for policy support is increasingly focused on economic development. Though a recent study by Next 10 revealed that so-called green jobs were was not yet delivering enough momentum to turn the economy around, offshore wind deserves another look.

One study by Siemens showed that offshore wind provides 22 jobs per MW in Europe, which compares to approximately 7 jobs per MW for onshore wind there. Jobs in the U.S. are much lower, according to the study, with just 2 jobs per MW for onshore wind, the key difference being Europe’s market features 90% local content, while the U.S. is closer to 50%. Rather than manufacturing being the key to maximizing jobs on land-based wind projects, it is ongoing maintenance that provides 70% of employment benefits for offshore wind over the long term.

A recent report by the federal National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) claims that the U.S. could feasibly tap 54 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy if the U.S. was to obtain 20% of its total electricity from wind power options by 2030.

Google Steps in on Transmission

The other big news, as far as offshore wind is concerned, is that Google is investing heavily in a $5 billion transmission “backbone” off the Atlantic Coast to help bolster this emerging renewable energy market.  The transmission line, which is expected to be constructed 20 miles offshore and stretch from Virginia up to New Jersey, could be up and ready for business as early as 2016. Other partners include Good Energies, an investment firm specializing in renewables, and Marubeni, a Japanese trading firm.

This is not Goggle’s first foray into wind. This past May, the firm raised its profile on green energy when it sank almost $40 million into two North Dakota wind farms. The wind farms are being developed by NextEraEnergy, the subsidiary of Florida, Power & Light that owns and operates the largest fleet of wind farms in the U.S.  

A transmission “backbone” off the Atlantic Coast would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is serious about offshore wind. The prime advantage of the backbone approach is that transmission infrastructure is cheaper than storage. Since the wind blowing off the Atlantic Coast in the Northeast is well beyond energy demand, and prevailing patterns move parallel to the coast, building a transmission backbone that hugs the coastline is an infrastructure project that could really be a game changer. This approach allows premium wind resources to complement production from less robust sites, smoothing our fluctuations, and thereby “firm up” this notoriously variable renewable resource.

Meanwhile, the nation’s nuclear industry was struck by another blow as Constellation Energy pulls out of a Baltimore Gas & Electric new construction project in the eastern seaboard.

Share on Facebook

Victor Calvo

The Calvos were Spanish immigrants, who settled in the Santa Clara Valley in the early part of the 20th century. His father and mother came to California as children, after their families first emigrated to Hawaii as contract laborers on sugar plantations, to escape the poverty of rural Andalusia. His family farmed in the Santa Clara Valley, near San Antonio road. He worked the fields alongside his father and brothers, and knew hard work from a very early age.

He was valedictorian of his graduating class at Mountain View High School in 1942, and volunteered for the Army Air Corps. He became a bomber pilot, stationed in Cerignola, Italy. The heroism of these pilots was chronicled in Stephen Ambrose’s marvelous book, “The Wild Blue”, which told the story of George McGovern and the men and boys who flew B 24′s over Germany. Victor didn’t know McGovern, but their stories, and the dangers they faced, were much the same. He flew more than twenty missions over Germany, including several top secret flights that were never recorded.

He returned home to Santa Clara County, and graduated from Stanford University with a degree in political science in 1948. He worked alongside immigrant farm workers to pay for college. Years later in Sacramento, he would remember the back breaking labor and the short handled hoe, and supported the United Farm Workers union. He and his wife, Nellie, were blessed with five children, and he became a successful businessman, and a community activist. He began his career in public service in 1962, with his election to the Mountain View City Council, followed by election to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. He was elected to the State Assembly in 1974.

In the time that I worked for him, I never heard him speak much about his wartime service, but looking back, I can clearly see the quiet dignity and unspoken courage of a man who had seen war and death up close, but who chose not to talk about his sacrifice and service. What I do remember is his unflinching honesty and integrity, and his old fashioned sense of right and wrong. He was a straight arrow in a sea of ego and ambition, with the temptations of power nearby. He was low key and quiet, but razor sharp and tough as nails when being pressured by special interests. He was calm and deliberate when faced with a difficult decision. He was an environmentalist before the word came into use, a life-long bird watcher, and a pioneer in fighting air pollution as a founding member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In Sacramento, he and Nellie, lived in the same apartment building as then Governor Jerry Brown.

He loved the work of being a legislator, and was well liked and respected by his colleagues for his intellect and knowledge of environmental and energy issues. He worked to protect California’s forests from clear cutting, but having been in the retail lumber business, he listened to those on the industry side. He was an early champion of environmental protection, and carried bills to advance energy efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy. As Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, he faced down the nuclear power industry and their powerful allies, including his old friend, Senator Al Alquist, and instead, pushed for renewable energy and cogeneration.

He was a liberal, reform Democrat, and a loyal lieutenant of Assembly Speaker, Leo McCarthy. He was scrupulously fair, and believed in due process for every side of an issue. As a Committee Chairman, he was a stickler for the rules, and last minute amendments were not allowed unless they were available to everyone and had been analyzed by independent Committee staff.

He was heartbroken when the Speakership fight between Leo McCarthy and Howard Berman broke out, and he decided to retire after only three terms. His hand- picked successor, Byron Sher, then a Palo Alto City Councilman, went on to serve 25 years in the Assembly and Senate, and proved to be a worthy successor. Victor said we wouldn’t miss him, but we did.

Governor Jerry Brown appointed him to the Public Utilities Commission, where he was an independent, hard working Commissioner, who read every case before him, and wrote nearly every decision adopted in his name. He refused to cave into pressure from utility lobbyists or cut deals with his more expedient colleagues. He listened to all sides, studied the record, and then voted his conscience. As in the Legislature, he stood apart from the crowd, did his job, and neither sought or received special attention.

He served as an alternate appointee to the California Coastal Commission, but was denied a permanent appointment and the chance to become Chairman of the Commission by then Speaker Willie Brown. He was too independent, and influential with the other Commissioners. And, so he retired from the public arena, to a good life of family, golf, travel, and reading history.

As he comes to the end of his life’s journey, he is at peace, with a satisfied mind. But the memory of his lifetime of public service, and the example of his integrity and courage, will live on.

~ V. John White

(See Tribute in SFGate.com)

Share on Facebook

The U.S. on Tuesday approved construction of two solar-power facilities that will be built on federal public land in California.

The two projects, proposed by units of Chevron Corp. and Irish renewable-energy developer NTR PLC, are the first solar-power facilities approved for U.S. public lands, and the first in a string of solar-power projects the government is expected to approve by the end of the year that will more than double the solar-power generation capacity in the U.S.

“These projects are milestones in our effort to rapidly and responsibly capture renewable energy resources on public lands,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said during a conference call.

NTR unit Tessera Solar obtained approval last month from California regulators to build a 709-megawatt solar-thermal power plant on federal land in California’s remote Imperial Valley. The company will use a series of large dishes lined with curved mirrors to track the sun and beam solar energy to a device that will use the energy to generate electricity.

Full Article

Share on Facebook

Obviously, California policies on procurement of electricity from generating facilities using renewable resources and their interconnection at either the transmission or distribution level play an important part in this planning process.  While the California Legislature failed to pass a bill this year that would raise the minimum Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33% by 2020, state agencies such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), in compliance with AB32 and the Governor’s Executive Order, are moving ahead with plans to set that goal administratively, regardless of the final shape contained in any state legislation.

That still leaves a number of renewable energy unknowns facing the LTPP. A key issue is the amount of transmission that will be built to deliver electricity generated in the competitive renewable energy zones (CREZs). A transmission plan was developed by the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI), which was coordinated by CEERT under a contract with the California Energy Commission.  Then the CPUC hired three different consulting firms to again review many of the underlying assumptions that went into the RETI plan and issued this report.

One RETI assumption that was changed by the CPUC was the elimination of a two-mile buffer to some of the CREZs. RETI had developed the buffer idea to appease environmentalists worried about impacts of renewable energy developments on sensitive habitats, such as the California poppy preserve in the Tehachapi Mountains, a prime wind resource area.

One of the main unknowns facing California’s future renewable energy supply is the role that solar photovoltaics (PV) will play. In the past PV was primarily a distributed generation (DG) technology typically installed “behind-the-meter,” however rapid cost reductions and the ability to quickly build projects has many experts suggesting that large scale installations of this modular technology will play a much larger role than previously estimated. 

Solar PV panels near Lake Oroville at Dusk

Due to permitting delays and lags in construction of new transmission lines for big Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants in the desert, an analysis was performed to see how much DG could be added to the grid without new transmission upgrades. All told, the analysis showed from 5,000 to 10,000 MW of solar PV could be added to the state’s portfolio in a relatively short amount of time. This could easily accommodate the 1,800 to 3,000 MW solar PV estimated to be installed under the California Solar Initiative (CSI) by 2016.

Out-of-state renewable energy development also presents unknowns to the RETI blue print for the state’s renewable energy future.  Some question whether the energy from these resources would actually be delivered to California as a “bundled” product, inclusive of both the energy and the “renewable energy credit” (REC), a certificate verifying that 1 MWhr of electricity was generated from a renewable energy resource, thus requiring physical transmission, or whether the REC would be sold to a California utility either separate from the energy or with the energy delivered into another jurisdiction first.  

Obviously, the LTPPs must be developed in a manner that accounts for these uncertainties. Thus, while core scenarios are a first step in that planning process, it must also include sensitivity analyses that will infuse the LTPP with sufficient flexibility to reflect these uncertainties. For CEERT, a starting point is to plan for a system that encourages full development of our renewable energy resources over the next ten years in a manner that can be adapted to real world experience. That is what California has been good at doing in the past, and what its role as a technology incubator demands

Share on Facebook

A burrowing owl surveys the terrain for prey in the Coachella Valley Preserve in Palm Desert. Statewide, the owl population has been decreasing because of habitat loss. (Mark Boster, Los Angeles Times / May 27, 2009)

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times

An alarming decline in the number of burrowing owls in the Imperial Valley — a Southern California agricultural area that had been considered a stronghold for the species — has prompted calls for an immediate inquiry by state wildlife authorities.

Surveys by the Imperial Irrigation District show the burrowing owl population has dropped from about 5,600 pairs in the early 1990s to 4,879 pairs in 2007 and 3,557 pairs in 2008.

“We’ve seen a 27% drop in one year alone,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. “If there is a similar drop next year, this bird could disappear in California.”

(read full article)

Share on Facebook