Solar jobs across the country

The Solar Foundation recently released an interactive map and a report that ranks states by the number of PV installations and solar industry jobs. It may not surprise you that sunny states like Arizona, Hawaii, and California landed the numbers one, two, and three spots respectively for solar jobs per capita. But solar PV is not just a Western/Pacific phenomenon. Massachusetts and New Jersey also report large numbers of solar jobs per capita, and both North Carolina and Pennsylvania fall in the top-ten states for solar installations on homes.  

Boston Food Bank solar array. Photo: Massachusetts Exec. Offices of Energy and Environmental Affairs

The Bay State blows past its solar goal four years early

Last week, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick announced that the state had already surpassed its goal to install 250 megawatts (MW) of solar energy by 2017. The new goal has been revised to 1,600 MW by 2020.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Massachusetts increased its solar generation capacity from 16 MW in 2009 to over 250 MW, and installed 198 MW of solar power in 2012 alone.

New York extends its solar commitment

Last week, appropriately on Earth Day, the New York State Senate unanimously passed legislation that would extend the NY-Sun Initiative through 2023. The bipartisan bill, S.2522, would extend a stable and predictable long-term incentive program that would enable New Yorkers to install another 2,200 MW of solar, which would power roughly 400,000 homes. New York currently ranks 12th in the country for total installed solar capacity.

Indianapolis has several major solar farms in the works

In March, workers broke ground on a 12 MW solar installation for the Indianapolis International Airport. The project is expected to generate electricity by the end of the year, and will be the country’s largest solar generation facility located at an airport. Solar installations are also planned for the south side of the city and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Renewable energy policies are driving clean energy blooms across the country

This blog contains just a few examples of how states are taking the initiative to source larger and larger portions of their electricity supplies from renewables. For more information about how clean, renewable energy is rolling out across the country, check out the latest UCS report: How Renewable Electricity Standards Deliver Economic Benefits and read my colleague Jeff Deyette’s blog on the topic.

Bring on that sun!

Driving Renewable Energy Development

The U.S. supply of renewable electricity—including wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower—has been growing at a remarkable pace recently. The wind and solar industries experienced record installations in 2012, and non-hydro renewables now supply more than 5 percent of the total U.S. power supply, up from less than 2 percent in 2007. A key driver of this development is the state RES, which requires electric utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy in their power supplies. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have these market-based policies, 17 of which have set targets of 20 percent or greater. As one of most popular and effective tools for encouraging renewable energy development, RES policies have played a central role in the clean energy success story over the last decade.

According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), at least 33,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable capacity—equivalent to about 50 average-sized coal plants—were added in RES states between 1998 and 2011. Today, 9 of the top 10 states in total installed wind capacity, and 17 of the top 20 states in total installed solar PV capacity, have RES policies in place. Looking ahead, state RESs are poised to continue driving renewable energy development and are projected to support at least 87,000 MW of new capacity additions by 2025.

A Good Deal for Consumers

Meeting RES requirements is proving to be an affordable way for utilities to add power-generating capacity while reducing dependence on fossil fuels. In a recent evaluation of RES compliance-cost data available for 14 states, LBNL estimated that all but one state experienced cost impacts of less than 2 percent, with some utilities even reporting consumer savings. For example, renewable energy investments spurred by the Minnesota RES lowered electricity prices for Xcel Energy customers—the state’s largest utility—by 0.7 percent in 2008 to 2009. Xcel also estimated that meeting the RES through 2025 would increase costs by just 1.4 percent.

In Kansas, recent RES-driven development by the state’s two largest utilities, which will put them more than halfway toward meeting their 20 percent by 2020 target, is resulting in a modest 1.7 percent rate increase according to the Kansas Corporate Commission. Compare that actual data with the whopping 45 percent rate increase projected in a bogus study of the Kansas RES by opponents trying to drum up support for their repeal effort.

Delivering a Range of Economic Benefits

The 112-MW Harvest Wind project in Huron County, Michigan, generates enough electricity to supply more than 15,000 local homes while providing an income stream for the community. Landowners who host such facilities receive lease payments of about $8,000 per turbine each year. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Investments in renewable energy are contributing substantially to economic prosperity nationwide in the form of jobs and income streams for state and local economies. In 2012, more than 119,000 people worked in U.S. solar-related industries and the U.S. wind industry employed 75,000 full-time workers. In fact, the total wind energy workforce includes 30,000 jobs at nearly 500 wind-turbine and components-manufacturing facilities across the country. Renewable energy industries are also supporting good paying jobs in construction, operations, maintenance, engineering, sales, and other services.

In addition, developing renewable energy resources makes good economic sense in communities where projects are sited. For example, government estimates show that wind projects have a county-level annual-earnings impact of $5,000 to $43,000 per installed megawatt. State and local governments also collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners, which are particularly important to rural communities struggling to maintain funding levels for critical services.

Economic success stories from renewable energy investments are evident in every RES state. For example, investments in three wind projects by DTE Energy, Michigan’s largest utility, are contributing $150 million in economic benefits to the state. Michigan is now home to nearly 200 companies that operate in the solar or wind supply chains, supporting more than 10,000 jobs.

The American Wind Energy Association reports that in 2011, Colorado’s wind industry supported 4,000 to 5,000 jobs, made property-tax payments totaling more than $10 million, and paid about $5.4 million in land lease payments.

New Jersey’s RES policy has helped make the state a national leader in solar development, with roughly 20,000 installations and more than 950 MW of installed PV capacity. New Jersey’s largest solar project, a 20-MW facility located in Pilesgrove, alone represented a $90 million investment and created some 200 construction jobs during its development in 2011.

Challenges Ahead

Workers install PV modules on an Englewood, CO, home. Jobs are just one of the economic benefits that come from the increased investment in renewable energy spurred by state renewable electricity standards. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

RES polices have a long history of bipartisan support, yet now one of the most important challenges they face is repeated attacks led by organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, Beacon Hill Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which often receive funding from fossil fuel interests. Fortunately, most of the attacks have been unsuccessful, largely because many policy makers on both sides of the political aisle recognize the diverse and significant benefits that renewable energy development confers on their state economies and local communities.

Efforts to roll back or repeal RES policies are expected to continue, including in North Carolina where RES opponents are now demonstrating they’ll even undermine the political process to try and get their way. But their charge is only going to get harder, as state RES continue to deliver the economic goods and help accelerate the nation’s transition to a cleaner, safer, and more reliable energy future.

Crowd headed for the sun

Costs and Risks, On You

The long and uncertain process for permitting and building nuclear power plants creates costs and risks. The utilities that continue to pursue nuclear power permitting and construction all have protections from their state regulators that the risks and costs for nuclear plant development will be paid by consumers, without regard to progress or success of these efforts. Utility consumers are paying for these plants through rate increases before the plants begin producing any energy. A UCS-sponsored study of costs projected the Levy power plant could add $700 to residential electric customers’ annual electric bill by the year 2021, which might be when the plant begins to produce electricity. What the final cost will actually be, no one knows.

Cheaper Cleaner Sooner, With You

There are much better energy investments available, that will provide benefits for everyone, right here in our homes and offices.  Instead of constructing a power plant off in the distance to be ready at some unknown date, some utilities are making investments in their customers’ efficiency. This means better cooled homes when the air conditioning ducts don’t leak, and the heat from outside does not get in. In commercial buildings, this means smaller quieter electrical equipment, higher occupancy rates, and greater profits.  Government and investment advisors provide guidance on this.

Despite the fact that the average cost to utilities for saving a kilowatthour of electricity is 2.5 cents and total cost is about 4 cents in 14 leading states, not every state is looking for this cheaper, cleaner, faster energy choice. Energy efficiency is not as well known in power supply planning in these states still waiting for nuclear power plant construction. As a percentage of statewide utility revenues, Georgia spends 0.16 percent, South Carolina 0.23 percent, North Carolina 0.5 percent and Florida 0.77 percent while the U.S. average is 1.6 percent and 12 states invest over 2.5 percent.  This, like the choice to shift the nuclear power costs and risks to consumers, is a result of state policy.

Sunshine—Who can use that energy?

Over 7000 homes and buildings installed solar panels on their roofs last month in the U.S., and the month before and the month before. The boom in solar installations reflects decisions made by building owners, contracts agreed by solar suppliers, and support from the elected U.S. Congress and then-President George W. Bush.

One big driver for the increase in solar are the recent cost reductions from manufacturers around the world.  In 2010 and 2011, the U.S. average installed price of solar PV has fallen 35 percent, and dropped another 27 percent in 2012.  Solar PV panel prices have dropped by a whopping 60 percent since the beginning  of 2011.

Another huge driver for all this solar going on to roofs is a purely American innovation—the panels are owned, financed and maintained by a third party. In addition to the utility selling electricity from a wire on the street, the solar companies are selling electricity from the solar panels on your roof.

Here is a map showing which states allow this 3^rd-party power agreement. It seems there are states that have prohibited this kind of transaction between willing parties. Instead of banning the innovation of electricity generated at the customers’ location, these states and their utilities should develop a business plan that allows this sort of thing to grow and everyone to prosper. That seems more like the American way.

http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/3rd_Party_PPA_map.pptx

How to compare choices

There are lots of reasons to choose solar over nuclear.  Solar power does not draw water from reservoirs or rivers. Solar power does not have safety risks that go on for years without being corrected. No waste from solar plants can be used to make bombs.  But maybe I have already made up my mind. I have invested my own money to put solar panels on my own roof.  My risk, my power supply, my choice.

Where nuclear power proposals do not face a test of competition or even comparison with alternatives, lawmakers should require utility regulators to have power companies conduct a comprehensive integrated resource planning process where energy efficiency and renewables are on a level playing field with other supply options.

If the owners of a nuclear power plant are willing to take a risk with their own money, maybe they don’t need to justify their choice. But if the money at risk is YOURS, and there is NO review, seems like the state government should get more involved in protecting the consumer.

As a scientist concerned about climate change, and with a brother working in the coal mines of northern West Virginia, I often find myself in the unique position of having a foot in both the “green” (environmentalist) and “blue” (labor) worlds. So I was excited about attending and presenting at the BGA’s Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference. As I headed to the opening session, I wondered whether I would be out of place without a tie at a conference in DC, and I was relieved to see most of the audience in jeans and polo shirts—I felt like I’d come home!

Convener Jeremy Richardson and panelist Eric Mathis during the workshop on April 17, 2013.
Photo credit: Stonestreet Creative.

As part of my Kendall Fellowship research on West Virginia, I organized a workshop called “Building a Sustainable Future for the West Virginia Coalfields.”  The session drew considerable turnout, and I moderated a rich discussion on success stories from heavily coal-dependent communities.

Our panelists were Bob Brown from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and Eric Mathis, City Commissioner from the City of Williamson, WV. Bob is program manager for AFT on an effort called Reconnecting McDowell, a comprehensive, long-term effort involving well over 100 partners (including BGA) that seeks to empower local residents in realizing solutions to McDowell’s persistent problems, ranging from poverty and underperforming schools to drug abuse and lack of infrastructure. Eric is founder of a project called Sustainable Williamson, which is seeking to “redefine the economic landscape of coal country” by focusing on six components of sustainability that include not only a diversified energy portfolio and job skills training but also healthy communities and food systems. Attendees were engaged throughout the 90-minute session, and many remarked to me afterward that they felt inspired by the positive stories emerging from the state.

UCS president Kevin Knobloch participated in a panel discussion in the opening plenary. And several other UCS experts also participated in workshops, including Rachel Cleetus speaking about climate impacts and Josh Goldman discussing oil savings. UCS Senior Energy Analyst Mike Jacobs has also blogged about his perspective of the conference.

I was inspired by both green and blue leaders who all stressed the importance of working together both to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and simultaneously to create good, high quality jobs for American workers.

Notable was a rousing keynote presentation by AFL-CIO president Richard L. Trumka. Rich called for us all to work together to address the “twin crises of climate change and joblessness.” A former coal miner himself, Rich condemned Patriot Coal Company, which declared bankruptcy and is seeking to be relieved of its health insurance obligations to some 10,000 retired coal miners, saying the company “stands for everything wrong in our country.” And he applauded a joint letter by United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts and two prominent environmental leaders, Van Jones and Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins—unlikely but powerful allies in the fight for fairness for workers. Patriot bankruptcy proceedings continue to unfold. Rich closed his address by calling the environmental and labor movements “joined at the hip” and stressed that only by working together can we address the serious challenges we all face. That sentiment hit home for me, as someone with a personal stake in both.

So, can other Southeast states benefit as well?

Wind farm and Kansas highway
credit: Abigail Jacobs, Univ. of Colorado

Yes. This exciting change in energy supply choices for the Southeast comes after a series of fundamental policy decisions, and the resulting years of experience with renewable energy that followed. Wind power has become available at low prices around the world through market support of a U.S. federal production tax credit, Renewable Portfolio Standards in U.S states, and feed-in-tariffs in Europe.

In addition, the U.S. opened the transmission system to allow generators to compete with one another. The Georgia Power and Alabama Power deals both rely on the wind farm owners scheduling the needed transmission, and paying the owners of that existing transmission.

Wind energy all over the place?!

Since the mid-1990s, when wind power additions started coming by the hundreds of megawatts, utility operators and their regulators have learned they can adapt to use renewable energy, even though it is predictably variable. Superstitions about wind and solar generation have fallen as wind power levels have risen to supply more than 15 percent of electricity in three states and three European countries.

Who is minding the store?

State governments, the investor-owned utilities they regulate, and consumer-owned utilities make more of the decisions about new (and old) power plants and where our energy comes from.

When those decisions are made with all the concerns relevant to the public interest, and allow new information from suppliers offering alternatives with lower costs, wind power comes up a winner. While Georgia Power found their way to buy wind energy based only on the power price, many states have recognized a longer list of benefits from wind and solar.

With jobs on everyone’s mind, it is important to ask if your state’s energy policies are helping create new jobs. Fellow UCS analyst Laura Wisland summarized some clean tech job creation reports, and the surprising politics.

There is great potential for change in how the Southeast gets its supplies of electricity. The region has a history of heavy reliance on producing electricity with coal imported from outside the Southeast. When UCS made a nationwide survey of coal imports, five Southeast states (GA, NC, FL, AL, SC) each sent over $1 billion per year out of state. Renewable energy and energy efficiency create a lot more jobs, and lower priced electricity.

Ask your PUC, how can you get these benefits?

Representatives Poe (R-TX), Thompson (D-CA), Welch (D-VT), Gibson (R-NY), and Gardener (R-CO) simultaneously introduced an identical bill in the House.

UCS joined 235 other groups to support the MLP Parity Act. This diverse group of supporters includes manufacturers, project developers, utilities, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, trade associations, and organized labor.

What are MLPs?

MLPs are a corporate structure that can raise capital by issuing shares of ownership in the stock market, but at the same time enjoy tax benefits not available to typical corporations. While profits from publicly traded corporations are taxed at both the corporate and shareholder levels, income from MLPs is taxed only at the shareholder level because it is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Established by Congress in 1980, MLPs have been used extensively by the oil, natural gas, and coal industries. Investment in energy-related MLPs has grown from $2 billion in 1994 to $241 billion in 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

To be considered an MLP, 90 percent of the partnership’s gross income must be from passive income, such as royalties, interest, and rents from real property, rather than income from business operations. An exception is made, however, for income from production, processing, and transportation of minerals and natural resources. Under this exception, a significant amount of investment has been channeled through MLPs to conventional energy infrastructure such as oil and natural gas pipelines and exploration and coal mining, transportation, and processing. Income from geothermal energy is also eligible. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 expanded MLP-eligible income sources to include transportation of ethanol and biodiesel.

Expanding MLPs to include clean energy technologies
Source: Senator Chris Coons. 2013. Master Limited Partnership Parity Act White Paper. Online at: http://www.coons.senate.gov/MLP

Expanding MLPs to provide tax parity with fossil fuels

The Senate and House bills would expand the definition of MLPs to include 14 new technologies and fuels. This includes several renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, biomass, marine, hydropower, and biodiesel. However, it would also include energy efficient buildings, as well as several technologies that could use either renewable or fossil fuels such as fuel cells, combined heat and power (CHP), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and electricity storage.

The benefits from these changes could be significant. For example, BNEF concludes that vehicles such as MLPs that make “project investments a more liquid option and that allow…projects to tap a broader pool of investors through capital markets” will be a significant driver in unlocking lower costs of capital in the future. BNEF projects that the cost of capital for financing the commercial operation of renewable energy systems could decrease from a 14 percent cost of levered equity to a cost of 8-12 percent. Such a decrease in the cost of capital would translate into a significant decrease in the cost of generating electricity from renewable energy sources.

MLPs are an important complement to other renewable energy policies

The renewable energy industry currently relies on a relatively small number of investors that require relatively high rates of return. The recent financial crisis greatly exacerbated this problem. By giving renewable energy projects access to a much larger pool of investors and lower cost financing, MLPs help address a specific market barrier that’s currently inhibiting development. In this way, they provide an important complement to other policies such as federal tax credits and state renewable electricity standards, which have been the primary drivers of the recent growth in renewable energy in the U.S.  These policies have also created new jobs, reduced emissions, and helped drive down costs, making renewable technologies more cost-competitive with conventional energy sources.

MLPs have played a similar role in the oil, gas, and coal industries over the past 30 years by supplementing dozens of other federal and state tax incentives available to those industries. For example, shale gas developers have received approximately $10 billion in tax credits, and millions in research and development funding, that have helped fuel the shale gas revolution.

Giving renewable energy projects access to the low cost financing available from publicly traded MLPs would help level the playing field with fossil fuels, while giving all Americans the opportunity to invest in the transition to a cleaner, low-carbon economy.

Water Dependence Risks for America’s Aging Coal Fleet highlights the economic vulnerabilities of coal plants and the water implications of our electricity choices. The mini-report builds on:

• UCS’s recently released report on the costs of electricity from coal plants. The Ripe for Retirement effort involved crunching the numbers on every coal-powered generator in the U.S., to see how each stacks up against newer, more efficient, and less-polluting sources like natural gas and wind power. It concluded that a third of all U.S. coal generators — more than 350 in more than 30 states, adding up to some 59,000 megawatts — are “old, inefficient, dirty, and no longer economically competitive.”
• UCS’s Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative, and specifically our Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants report. That work helped people understand why and how our energy choices make a difference when it comes to their water habits — how much water power plants pull out of lakes, rivers, and aquifers, and in what ways that water use gets us into trouble.

Coal and Water

Water Dependence Risks for America’s Aging Coal Fleet dexterously pulls those two lines of thought together. The new analysis looked at both those ripe-for-retirement generators that hadn’t yet been put out to pasture, and the whole swath of coal units that utilities and other plant owners have already announced that they’re retiring.

And it turns out that many of our country’s coal plants aren’t just old, inefficient, dirty, and expensive. They’re also thirsty. Big time.

UCS found that most of the generators in the “ripe” category have once-through cooling, which involves withdrawing large amounts of water as part of the electricity-making process. While almost all of that water ends up back in a river or lake, that technology fell out of fashion decades ago because of the harmful effects of all that water withdrawal and the much-hotter water that flows back.

Less Coal, More Water

So what would it mean in terms of water use to have all those inefficient generators stop drawing and consuming (evaporating) water? That’s exactly what Water Dependence Risks tells us:

Water savings potential from coal retirements

• If all of the coal generators already announced for retirement were replaced with natural gas combined-cycle generators using more-modern recirculating cooling systems, “annual water withdrawals would drop by 4,166 billion gallons and water consumption by 29 billion gallons.”
• If the ripe-for-retirement generators were dealt with the same way, “annual water withdrawals would drop an additional by 4,164 billion gallons and water consumption by an additional 49 billion gallons.”
• The figures get even better if all those plants were replaced with energy efficiency and renewable energy options that don’t use any water for electricity generation, like wind and solar photovoltaics. Picking that route means possible savings of some 8,400 billion gallons of water withdrawals and 150 billion gallons of water consumption.

All the water figures are for the power plant cooling water pieces, and don’t take into account water elsewhere in the process, like hydraulic fracturing for getting the natural gas. So technology options that avoid those water quantity and quality implications (see that third bullet, above) can look even better.

Water withdrawal and consumption savings by state

And, in terms of the cooling water opportunities, some states could be bigger winners than others:

• Alabama, Maryland, Michigan, and Wisconsin could each save more than 250 billion gallons of water withdrawals a year with the renewables switch-out, and
• Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi could each save more than 5 billion gallons annually.

Sense and Sensibility and Coal Plants

Lots of old, inefficient, and uncompetitive coal generators are already shutting down, and that makes sense in a whole lot of ways. So does taking a hard look at other older coal units that aren’t likely to make the grade, economically. The water profiles of many older plants — the fact that they’re water-sucking (even if not brain-sucking) — means that closing them down can also bring real water savings across the country.

Artfully mashing together an analysis of coal economics and an understanding of power plant cooling water gives yet another fine reason for moving toward an energy future that’s cleaner, healthier, and, it turns out, a whole lot better from a water perspective.

This Earth Day, cause for a bit of extra glee.

With Earth Day 2013 upon us, there are all kinds of opportunities available to lower our impact on the environment and to reduce global warming emissions. From replacing incandescent light bulbs with the latest LEDs, installing (and properly using) a programmable thermostat, planting trees, or participating in a community park clean up event, nowadays the options are seemingly endless. But organizing a Cooler Smarter trivia event for your friends, family, or other members of your community could be a new and exciting way to have a significant impact.

Cooler Smarter Trivia Night Kit

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Cooler Smarter trivia kit is based on the consumer guidebook, Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps to Low Carbon Living, which several UCS colleagues and I co-wrote last year. Cooler Smarter breaks through the confusion about how people can fight climate change to help you sweat the right stuff. It offers science-based advice on the most effective actions each of us can personally take to reduce our carbon emissions. Cooler Smarter also challenges readers to cut their carbon emissions 20 percent this year, and to become low-carbon leaders by encouraging others in their community to do the same.

That’s where trivia comes into play. Hosting your own Cooler Smarter trivia event is a great way to lead on climate change by inspiring your guests to get started reducing his or her carbon footprint by 20 percent with a few simple, practical steps. You could amplify your impact by a factor of 10 or 20 in just one evening! That’s exactly what we mean by being cooler and smarter.

Inside the UCS Cooler Smarter trivia kit you’ll find all the tools you need to host a successful event, including:

• Sample trivia night agenda
• Five rounds of Cooler Smarter questions and answers
• Tips for planning your trivia night

After you’ve planned your trivia night, make sure to visit CoolerSmarter.org to use UCS’s interactive tool for even more ways for you and your guests to lower your carbon footprint. Happy Earth Day!

This is an excellent question if you are interested in the future of manufacturing and clean energy. And that is what the BlueGreen Alliance is all about.

When asked to think about this, I figured I would point to studies about the future that say 20%, 30%, even 80% renewable electricity are possible. But I realized that in some places, that future has already arrived.

UCS recently released a report, Ramping Up Renewables: Energy You Can Count On, which summarizes plenty of evidence that our modern economy can run on renewable electricity supplies.

The report describes how the grid remains reliable with increasing amounts of variable energy generation from wind and solar power. (See how in the Ramping Up Renewables infographic.) Experience with wind power and solar providing over 50% of the electricity demand already in some times and places proves the electric utility industry knows how to make renewable energy reliable. See summary here.

Let’s take a closer look

To meet the BlueGreen Alliance challenge of renewable energy supplying U.S. manufacturing, we will need renewable electricity to meet the industrial sector’s share of electricity consumption in the U.S., which is around 26 or 27%.

Keep in mind that nation-wide, 6-7% of the present-day supply of electricity comes from renewable hydro-electric facilities at waterfalls and dams. Including renewable hydropower produced in states with significant wind farms, the annual energy production from renewables is already over 70% in three states: Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.

Data source: EIA Electric Power Monthly

Looking for more renewable sources?

Magma Energy Corp, geothermal generation in Soda Lake, Nevada. Photo: GEA)

There is considerable energy production and potential for growth from geothermal wells. Today over 4% of California’s electricity supply comes from the earth’s heat. Another under-used source, biomass (burning renewable fuels such as wood and agricultural residue), provides 26% of electricity generation in Maine and has considerable potential for expansion in the South.

These are renewable energy facilities that are less affected by daily weather patterns than wind and solar, and are projected to play a large role in the future scenario of 80% renewable electricity described by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab.

Transitioning to a system that relies heavily on wind and solar facilities does pose challenges to managing the electricity grid. New tools and technology are used to continue increasing the use of renewable energy. The grid needs flexibility, regardless of renewables, to deal with the predictable changes in electricity use from day to night, and also the unexpected, but common, trip of a breaker that disconnects a major power line or generator as large as a nuclear plant. Increasing scheduling flexibility is a hot topic (really) as it saves money and allows more wind and solar on the grid. Paying for more accurate flexible responses from generators is also hot.

Turns out, there is something for everyone

Everyone can be part of this flexibility. Home water heaters, air conditioners, and industrial users have flexibilities that can be paid for such services. Alcoa’s Warrick Operations (located in Southern Indiana) provides this in the Midwest ISO Energy Market. Grid operator PJM has demonstrated both water heaters and electric vehicle charging can be paid for this.

All good stuff, as these are easy-to-understand tools for bringing renewable energy on to the grid in ever-growing amounts. We also have power grid operators looking at weather forecasts for the added purpose of sunshine and wind predictions. That is another example of the utility industry learning to use existing tools in new ways, as the economy and society recognize the benefits of renewable energy.

How big is your state’s role?

The states have always had much more to say — and much greater influence — over power plant decisions because they control several pieces of the puzzle:

• States adopt renewable and clean energy standards. In 29 states and the District of Columbia, state law requires a portfolio of power plant types, with a requirement some fraction of power come from alternative, renewable, or low-carbon technology. This has been good policy for the average consumer from the beginning of such policies when Iowa sought wind development in its state. Carbon emissions and fuel costs are lower for everyone due to these policies. Tell your state legislator the most powerful energy policy at state level is a clean energy standard.
• States guide funding of energy efficiency.  Cost-effective energy savings opportunities are everywhere in existing buildings and homes. States, not the Federal government, decide how much will be spent on utility programs to improve energy efficiency, and how to bring those savings to low-income customers. Where $1 spent on reducing heating and cooling bills saves $2.57 for consumers, AND reduces CO2 emissions, AND lowers the cost for future grid and power plant needs, every state has plenty to do right now on this. Your public utility commissioners and governor should hear about this, from you.
• States approve nuclear plant costs. In the few examples of private companies building new nuclear plants, the state has shifted the costs to utility customers. Since nuclear plant construction costs have been tremendously difficult to predict, and delays add cost and cash flow problems, states favoring the nuclear choice assure the owner’s revenues will come from consumers long before the plant is completed and producing electricity.

Your day has come

There are a few ways we can make energy choices while the the EPA works through its delay. In addition to the points to raise with state decision-makers described above, you can be a decision maker in your own home.

• If you want to be a prosumer, and generate electricity by adding solar panels, you can join more than 6000 building owners per month doing just that.
• If you want to be a cooler, smarter consumer, UCS has written a book, Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living, about individual choices that are most sensible for reducing climate impacts and saving money. Check out the Cooler Smarter web tool to get started.