The recent events in Japan following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami damaging electricity infrastructure and several major nuclear generating units have highlighted the concern for electricity and energy independence. The President has announced his policy program to lessen dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has published an interesting White Paper that raises lots of questions, but suggests few answers.
What is the status of California's electricity supply. The California Chamber of Commerce March 2011 Economic Advisory Report reaches these conclusions: "The supply of electricity in California should be adequate in the near-term, as capacity has grown in recent years and industrial demand is just recovering from the recession. The outlook for electricity prices is uncertain. On the one hand, natural gas prices have fallen and many of the power contracts signed by the state during the energy crisis are unwinding. On the other, the state's utilities face increased costs associated with mandated investments to reduce their environmental footprints and to improve their distribution networks. This suggests prices will be stable at best and could well increase."
How will California fare under the proposals floating in Congress, and indeed being considered in the California Legislature. The President proposed that 80% of the nation's electricity come from clean energy technologies by 2035, based upon a "clean energy standard" yet to be devised (CES). On March 31, 2011, the President announced an energy plan that addresses in part the turmoil in the Middle East as Libya continues what appears to be a protracted civil war. That plan calls for cutting imports of foreign oil by one-third by 2025 by increasing U.S. oil production, investing in natural gas and renewable biofuels and increasing fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. While Californians may be less opposed to new oil drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, there is still some reluctance to increase offshore drilling on the California coast.
Electricity produced in California is from two major sources, nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon (2,200 MW, 12 years to re-licensing) and San Onofre (2,200 MW, 11 years to relicensing), while meet the needs of about 3 million average size households, and natural gas fired power plants. Hydro plants, biomass, windfarms, and solar, along with imported power from neighboring states, make up the balance.
The solar initiative is described by the California Energy Commission in its 2011 order setting out the goals for the 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report includes provision for a strategy to meet the Governor's Clean Energy Jobs Plan. This Integrated Energy planning process seeks to address concerns in electricity, natural gas, and transportation, with efforts to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gases, develop a broader range of alternative energy resources, improve energy infrastructure, and continue to develop and adopt clean energy technologies. The CEC expresses a need to develop 12,000 MW of localized power by 2020 (including solar systems of up to 2MW on rooftops of warehouses, schools, parking lot structures, and another 20 MW on public and private property. The CEC also sees another 8,000 MW of utility scale renewable projects by 2020, including transmission lines to feed into the grid of each of the major load pockets.
The bottom line for energy efficiency: use the electricity you need, but don't waste it. The cost of replacing less efficient appliances, furnaces, and air conditioners, replacing incandescent light bulbs, and adding insulation or energy efficient windows, is partially offset by tax credits. Automobile and trucks use enormous amounts of fossil fuels, but switching to electric vehicles means changing the distribution system to handle the new demand for charging batteries. In the interim, consumers will be faced with higher gasoline prices which may increase demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, while at the same time, expect to see higher fuel efficiency mandated at the federal level.
What does all of this mean to California business owners, their employees and families, as well as California consumers. If California takes the lead in development of lower carbon-footprint energy development, it will have to do so without over burdening electricity cost and driving manufacturers to other states. At the same time that natural gas looks to be the fuel of choice for electricity generation for intermediate and peaking power plants to firm and shape the less reliable renewable resources such as wind and solar, the need for much higher efficiency (if you burn natural gas to make power, don't waste it) is coming at the same time pressure is mounting to close down once-through sea water cooled generating plants (nearly 18,000 MW) located along the California Coast for environmental reasons.
The federal Energy Information Administration indicates that the national mix of electricity generation is 20% nuclear, 10% renewable, 25% natural gas, and 45% coal. The President's proposal gives efficient natural gas (new generators using more efficient burners and combined cycle heat recovery) a "half credit" for new, clean sources. The cost of new resources will likely be borne by local ratepayers, and even though some renewables (such as solar) are given incentives through tax credits (or even grants), it is to bring the cost to a competitive level with new gas fired generators. Thus, California may be at a disadvantage with a state or region that has high hydro (TVA or Columbia River), can use nuclear or has abundant coal generation already in place. Since it takes approximately one MW of fossil fuel to firm and shape each MW of renewables being installed, there is a cost for capital that is not offset by the cost of fuel savings (wind and solar energy is "free" once the system is installed).
It will be interesting to see how a new federal Clean Energy System (CES) integrates with the state proposals, and specifically California which is leading the renewable effort. In fairness, California business owners and consumers should see a level playing field for electricity standards and rates, and not be threatened with outward migration of manufacturing to states having lower power costs.
What is the status of California's electricity supply. The California Chamber of Commerce March 2011 Economic Advisory Report reaches these conclusions: "The supply of electricity in California should be adequate in the near-term, as capacity has grown in recent years and industrial demand is just recovering from the recession. The outlook for electricity prices is uncertain. On the one hand, natural gas prices have fallen and many of the power contracts signed by the state during the energy crisis are unwinding. On the other, the state's utilities face increased costs associated with mandated investments to reduce their environmental footprints and to improve their distribution networks. This suggests prices will be stable at best and could well increase."
How will California fare under the proposals floating in Congress, and indeed being considered in the California Legislature. The President proposed that 80% of the nation's electricity come from clean energy technologies by 2035, based upon a "clean energy standard" yet to be devised (CES). On March 31, 2011, the President announced an energy plan that addresses in part the turmoil in the Middle East as Libya continues what appears to be a protracted civil war. That plan calls for cutting imports of foreign oil by one-third by 2025 by increasing U.S. oil production, investing in natural gas and renewable biofuels and increasing fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. While Californians may be less opposed to new oil drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, there is still some reluctance to increase offshore drilling on the California coast.
Electricity produced in California is from two major sources, nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon (2,200 MW, 12 years to re-licensing) and San Onofre (2,200 MW, 11 years to relicensing), while meet the needs of about 3 million average size households, and natural gas fired power plants. Hydro plants, biomass, windfarms, and solar, along with imported power from neighboring states, make up the balance.
The solar initiative is described by the California Energy Commission in its 2011 order setting out the goals for the 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report includes provision for a strategy to meet the Governor's Clean Energy Jobs Plan. This Integrated Energy planning process seeks to address concerns in electricity, natural gas, and transportation, with efforts to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gases, develop a broader range of alternative energy resources, improve energy infrastructure, and continue to develop and adopt clean energy technologies. The CEC expresses a need to develop 12,000 MW of localized power by 2020 (including solar systems of up to 2MW on rooftops of warehouses, schools, parking lot structures, and another 20 MW on public and private property. The CEC also sees another 8,000 MW of utility scale renewable projects by 2020, including transmission lines to feed into the grid of each of the major load pockets.
The bottom line for energy efficiency: use the electricity you need, but don't waste it. The cost of replacing less efficient appliances, furnaces, and air conditioners, replacing incandescent light bulbs, and adding insulation or energy efficient windows, is partially offset by tax credits. Automobile and trucks use enormous amounts of fossil fuels, but switching to electric vehicles means changing the distribution system to handle the new demand for charging batteries. In the interim, consumers will be faced with higher gasoline prices which may increase demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, while at the same time, expect to see higher fuel efficiency mandated at the federal level.
What does all of this mean to California business owners, their employees and families, as well as California consumers. If California takes the lead in development of lower carbon-footprint energy development, it will have to do so without over burdening electricity cost and driving manufacturers to other states. At the same time that natural gas looks to be the fuel of choice for electricity generation for intermediate and peaking power plants to firm and shape the less reliable renewable resources such as wind and solar, the need for much higher efficiency (if you burn natural gas to make power, don't waste it) is coming at the same time pressure is mounting to close down once-through sea water cooled generating plants (nearly 18,000 MW) located along the California Coast for environmental reasons.
The federal Energy Information Administration indicates that the national mix of electricity generation is 20% nuclear, 10% renewable, 25% natural gas, and 45% coal. The President's proposal gives efficient natural gas (new generators using more efficient burners and combined cycle heat recovery) a "half credit" for new, clean sources. The cost of new resources will likely be borne by local ratepayers, and even though some renewables (such as solar) are given incentives through tax credits (or even grants), it is to bring the cost to a competitive level with new gas fired generators. Thus, California may be at a disadvantage with a state or region that has high hydro (TVA or Columbia River), can use nuclear or has abundant coal generation already in place. Since it takes approximately one MW of fossil fuel to firm and shape each MW of renewables being installed, there is a cost for capital that is not offset by the cost of fuel savings (wind and solar energy is "free" once the system is installed).
It will be interesting to see how a new federal Clean Energy System (CES) integrates with the state proposals, and specifically California which is leading the renewable effort. In fairness, California business owners and consumers should see a level playing field for electricity standards and rates, and not be threatened with outward migration of manufacturing to states having lower power costs.