U.S. Off-Shore Wind Industry Gets Not One, But Two Major Boosts

October 13th, 2010

The U.S. wind industry — launched in California in the ‘80s under the leadership of former governor Jerry Brown — has become a major player in global markets with traditional onshore power generation applications, leading the world in terms of accumulative wind capacity for the last two years. Yet efforts to move offshore – where wind resources are far superior but logistics are more challenging – have been hampered by a lack of regulatory support, particularly at the federal level of governance.

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

Tribute to Victor Calvo

October 8th, 2010

Victor Calvo is a former elected official from Mountain View, who served in the Legislature from 1975-1981, and on the State Public Utilities Commission from 1982-87. I was lucky enough to work for him for five years, as an Assembly committee consultant on air quality and alternative energy. Victor is not well known outside Santa Clara County, and has been mostly forgotten in Sacramento. Over the last several months, I’ve been spending some time with him as he battles prostate cancer. We retold stories from our time together, back in the day when the California Legislature was regarded as one of the finest deliberative bodies in the country. And he shared new details of his life and times in politics, and his service in World War II. Spending time with him reminded me how much I learned from him, especially about old fashioned integrity and personal honor.

Victor Calvo

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

California to Get Two Solar Plants on U.S. Public Land

October 5th, 2010
By CASSANDRA SWEET
(Wall Street Journal)

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

Planning for Renewables in Long-Term Power Procurement Process (LTPP)

September 29th, 2010

California law requires this state’s investor owned utilities (IOUs) to file long term procurement plans (LTPPs) for their procurement of electricity over a ten-year forward-looking planning horizon.  The central purpose of these plans is to ensure that the utility will be able to meet customer demand, with an adequate “reserve margin,” over the planning period.  The plans themselves are filed, reviewed, and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to avoid “after-the-fact” reasonableness review of the utility decisions and to ensure that utility procurement going forward meets specific criteria and incorporates state policy mandates, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and energy efficiency and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program targets.  Once these policies have been factored in, the plans identify what fossil generation may then be required to meet load or be held in reserve.  The CPUC’s current LTPP rulemaking, R.10-05-006, is currently underway, with an all-important “Scoping Memo,” which will address both required and suggested scenarios for the utilities’ LTPPs, expected to be issued soon.

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

Decline of burrowing owl in Imperial Valley prompts calls for inquiry

September 27th, 2010

Surveys show the owl’s population has dropped from about 5,600 pairs in the early 1990s to 3,557 pairs in 2008. The agricultural area had been considered a stronghold for the species.

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