Sustainability - - A Focus On Carbon

A Bizarre Trump Administration Proposal

2017-10-10T08:30:00.001-07:00

Energy Secretary Perry has announced an effort by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) to win support from the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency (FERC) to establish a mandate that utilities must adopt fossil fuel generation to, in the words of the press release, "...requiring [FERC's] organized markets to develop and implement reforms that would fully price generation resources necessary to maintain the reliability and resiliency of our nation’s grid" [emphasis added]. See the press release here.

While ample evidence exists that as the fraction of intermittent renewables (i.e., solar and wind, but mostly wind) increases on a utility’s system, that does negatively impact a utility's reliability that is a state-level issue. As such, it is within the purview of the utility and its state regulatory apparatus to address such problems.

Additionally, such problems are well-known to both utilities and their state-level commissions. It's also true that corrective actions are also well known. They include ramping dispatchable generation, either up or down, as well as using demand response to manage loads. Utility-scale storage would also be an option, if it was economic.

One of the stranger parts of that press release is "...fully price generation resources..." The implication being that power prices do not capture this cost. What's strange is that FERC only has oversight of wholesale power markets, not retail power costs and prices. The press release appears to conflate one with the other. At the wholesale level, market clearing prices are spot prices determined by the purchase and sale of those power products. At the retail level, one on-going challenge that stakeholders grapple with working to assure that retail power rates include costs associated with services to maintain system reliability as the fraction of total system generation comprised of intermittent renewables rises.

FERC defines ancillary services as: "...those services necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system." Transmission entities establish such prices. Traditionally, the generation side of the utility business has provided these services even though they are offered/required by its transmission business line. Since they are required as part of integrating intermittent renewables into the utility’s system, and FERC has regulatory oversight of transmission, the USDOE is using that hook as part of its effort to further undermine the adoption of intermittent renewable generation, primarily wind.

Needless to say, state legislatures and utility commissions, along with a long parade of stakeholders will not remain quiet. If FERC chooses to help prop up USDOE's back door effort to assist coal companies, expect a firestorm of opposition and litigation.

SolarCity Provides Financial Support to Republican Group Opposed to Clean Power Plan

2017-09-19T09:21:00.002-07:00

A recent article in Mother Jones details how several dozen large and influential corporations that have donated to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) have also publicly supported remaining in the Paris Climate Accord. This is an issue because RAGA has identified the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) as its top legal priority to undo.

Some of the companies involved argue that their donations is in the time honored tradition of donating to politicians and issues on both sides of the isle. To this observer, that is nothing more than a thin veil of respectability that calls their position into question. Further, these organizations contributed more to RAGA than to its democratic counterpart. Quoting from the article, “During the timeframe that the 27 companies donated about $3.3 million to the Republican group, 23 of them collectively gave about $1.9 million to the parallel Democratic organization.”

While it’s true that RAGA and its democratic counterpart have a broad political agenda, providing financial support to RAGA speaks volumes. Perhaps SolarCity’s financial support for RAGA is the most egregious example.

Cutting CO2 Emissions is Necessary but Not Sufficient

2017-09-06T16:21:00.002-07:00

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and colleagues recently published an article that lays out why cutting CO2 emissions ais necessary but is no longer sufficient to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gasses (GHG) to acceptable levels. Among their findings is that “…large CO2 extraction from the air is needed and a halt of growth of non-CO2 climate impacts to achieve the temperature stabilization…” They rightly point out that developed nations have an obligation to assist those nations since they haven’t contributed much to the problem but bear a disproportionate share of its impacts.

They also point to a role for demand-side changes that provide GHG mitigation. For example, reducing meat and dairy production is needed to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture. Other agriculture and land use changes (in addition to changes in our diets), include reducing food waste and changes in wood use “…have substantial mitigation potential, but they remain under-researched and poorly quantified.”

Hansen and his co-authors note that unless rapid emission reductions are initiated soon, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere using demand-side strategies will require more extreme changes to current agricultural and forestry practices. They also sounded a warning that if “large” [emphasis added] fossil fuel emissions continue, deamnd-side methods of removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere will require more costly industrial scale CO2 extraction.

What is More Important, Building Renewables or Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removing Existing CO2?

2017-09-02T20:03:00.000-07:00

What if cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), especially CO2, is not the same as increasing the share of electricity generated using renewables? Which would you pick? As an economist, such questions interest me. This kind of question interests me because we face a slew of problems and we have a limited amount of effort available to help solve them. If we are able to cut CO2 emissions at a lower cost one way rather than some other way, why pick the more costly approach?

For many folks, there is no question of deciding between cutting GHG and installing more renewables. They are assumed to be one in the same.

Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? Actually, there is.

Electricity planning analysis performed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is but one such body of work. In their 7th Power Plan, which was released at the beginning of 2016, is a chapter that addresses this very issue. Here's another source.

What the NWPPC found is that cheaper and more effective policies than building more renewables exist. The Brookings Institution released a paper back in 2014 that made similar arguments. The Brookings paper noted that “…renewable incentives…without a carbon price [results in] renewable energy [replacing] low-carbon gas plants rather than high-carbon coal plants.”

Google launched a project RE < C, which it eventually shut down. However, two engineers who worked on it came to the conclusion that even if we could get to zero carbon emisssions, that based on James Hansen's climate work, the planet would contnue warming for centuries to come. To arrest that continued warming, carbon must be removed from the atmosphere. You can read their piece here.

Of course, advocates for 100% renewables will argue that that excerpt proves the point – what is needed is to close all fossil fuel electricity generation. Yet, advocates of a 100% renewable path often also oppose new transmission lines, large solar arrays in the desert, and new wind farms in otherwise pristine mountainsides.

There’s a great deal of passion among those advocating for a renewables-only approach. I’m sympathetic to that movement. After graduating college and before starting graduate school I did volunteer research for a fellow at the Sierra Club’s office across the bay in San Francisco. My M.S. thesis, completed in 1979, examined the economics of active solar system for residential construction. My first project in the Pacific Northwest was performing the economic analysis of energy efficiency building odes, (they are now the energy components of the residential building codes in the four Northwest states). The Northwest consists of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana west of the Divide. Even so, I find that I’ve got to temper my enthusiasm for clean energy with reality.

It’s that tempering that leads me to reject studies such as that by Jacobson and his colleagues on substantive grounds. The fact is that contrary to his work, it isn't economic right now to convert every current use of fossil fuels to a very restrictive set of renewables – only those powered by the wind, the water, and sun. No nuclear. No carbon capture and storage. Only a little more energy efficiency.

Why would environmental organizations, such as The Sierra Club, oppose the adoption of a carbon tax, such as they did in Washington state, if they believe that cutting CO2 emissions is essential?

Recently, Portland and Multnomah County adopted a resolution that promotes 100% renewables community-wide by 2050. Yet, it contains a passage that specifically excludes from consideration "... energy derived from... nuclear, biomass feedstocks sourced from state and federal lands... and incineration of municipal and medical waste." It makes no mention of carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other cheaper approaches to removing existing CO2.

The Portland resolution allows its goals to be met via renewable energy credits (RECs). RECs can be bought separate from the electricity generated by the renewable. As a result, it allows for the perverse result in which a community buys REC's and then can legally claim to be using 100% renewably generated electricity while the utility serving that community continues to operate fossil fuel burning power plants. Using RECs is not the same as reducing the operation of existing fossil fueled electricity generating plants or removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere.

James Hansen and other scientist have argued that, as one report puts it, using renewables "... would not be enough and efforts [are needed] to ... reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent." They argue that could be achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility.

Is California About to Require that by 2045 All Electricity Must Come from Renewables?

2017-09-01T15:34:00.000-07:00

Not exactly. Let me explain. Our lack of even the most basic understanding of how the elecricity system operates (explained below) allows us to mistakenly imagine we are taking actions that will shut down CO2 emitting generators.

A number of headlines read something like "California Poised To Require All Its Electricity To Come From Renewables." SB100 appears to be a bit more complicated, however. Plus, electricity complies to the laws of physics, not the laws we mere mortals devise. Hoefully, this post will identify several important implications of these distinctions.

Recognize that electrons (what electricity consists of) going over the wires thorughout California flow from all generators located everywhere within what’s called the Western Interconnect (WECC). Electrons are already present throughout all the electric wires in every building in every community at every moment in time. When you flip a light switch on, more electricity gets generated that replaces what your lights consume. The only way to truly use only electricity from renewables and zero carbon sources is to isolate yourself from everyone else and only be connected to such generators.

Quoting from SB100, “399.30. (a) ...To fulfill unmet long-term generation resource needs...shall adopt and implement a renewable energy resources procurement plan that requires the utility to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, including renewable energy credits [emphasis added]...”

It might seem like splitting hairs, but the passage “…including renewable energy credits…” is significant. This is a reference to unbundled REC’s. This allows the utility to purchase the environmental attributes of a renewable resource but not the electricity that resource generates.

Your utility can continue to operate all its existing fossil fuel generators into the foreseeable future as long as it also buys enough unbundled REC’s to meet the new requirements of SB100.

It’s true that a renewable resource someplace else is generating “green” electrons. It’s just that the owner of the unbundled REC by definition isn’t serving its retail customers with those electrons. The reason that a REC can exist independent of the electrons produced by the wind turbine, for example, is due to how electrons flow, as was discussed at the beginning of this post.

If what we want to do is cut carbon emissions, REC's only do that to the extent that the resource that produces the REC is built instead of a fossil feul generator being built. This does not address how existing fossil fuel generators now continue operating in the future.

100% Renewables Study Implies Historic Construction Program

2017-08-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

The often cited study by Mark Jacobson et. al. that asserts it's economic to replace every fossil fuel use with either electricity from wind, water, and sun (WWS-only) or hydrogen produced using WWS-only in 139 countries over the next 33 years implies a massive construction program the likes of which we may not have ever seen. I find it useful to compare the implied construction program to what we have experienced in the recent past. Click here to see his paper on the 50 U.S. states.

Over the next 33 years, even under his extraordinary drop in total electric load, he envisions approximately 5.8 million MW of new generation are needed (plus an additional 600GW for peaking and system stability). He reports that as of 2013, 2.71% (of 5.8 million MW) is currently installed, or approximately1.6 million MW. Such quantities indicate an extraordinary construction program, especially since the U.S. installed capacity rose by only about 177,400MWs over the eight year period, 2006-2014, an increase of about 18%.

Looking at current expansion plans, generating plants in various stages of development as of 2015 amount to roughly 200,000MW. Even if all these plants are constructed, it represents a total addition of roughly 17%. Even if no existing generation capacity is retired between now and 2050 (of which there will be many), adding 4.8 million MW of new generation over the next 33 years implies an annual average increase in installed capacity of roughly 139,000MW. Every year for 33 years. That means every year the U.S. installed generation capacity will need to increase by roughly 79% of the growth witnessed over the eight year period, 2006-2014, and that assumes no plant retirements.

When these new generators are multiplied by costs for each type, the total generation capital cost is roughly $4.5 trillion. According to EEI, transmission & distribution investments are roughly 38% of the generation capital cost. With these T&D costs added, a conservative estimate of the needed construction program is a little over $6 trillion. Spread over 33 years, this translates to about $188 billion/year, which is twice the spending that’s occurred recently.

I find these numbers humbling.

Oregon PUC Declines to Support PGE's Proposed Wind Resource

2017-08-15T15:53:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday, the OPUC Commissioners held a regularly scheduled hearing. The main topic was Portland General Electric's (PGE) proposed acquisition of 175 aMW of wind. At the hearing, which I attended, renewable and environmental advocates were out in force. Dozens of citizens showed up wearing read t-shirts, some with 350.org, others from the Sierra Club. Others wore the color red in solidarity.

Commissioner Bloom, the lone Republican on the three-member Commission, read prepared remarks that were extraordinary, being delivered from the Dias. He chastised PGE for an op-ed in the Oregonian the prior Friday in which the Company's head honchos essentially pleded with the public to come to help support their proposed acquisition before the Commission. I've seen the Commissioners take witnesses to task. What I hadn't seen was a thorough admonishment of a utility at the beginning of a hearing, reading from prepared remarks.

Customer groups had filed testimony opposing PGE's request for "acknowledgement" by the Commission.

As I suspected would happen, the Commissions declined to acknowledge PGE's proposed acquisition of 175 aMW of wind ahead of need. The fact that the Company had no need for the acquisition until about 2029 essentially sealed its fate. While PGE will need new capacity, more wind in the Columbia River Gorge wouldn't make much of a dent in that need.

Acknowledgement is a formal step that is a "thumbs up" to what a utility has proposed in its IRP Action Plan. While acknowledgement doesn't guarantee rate recovery when the utility eventually files for cost recovery, it helps support such a filing. Of course, the utility can choose to build the plant. If it does so, it understands that the odds of rate recovery are slim.

2017-08-14T14:08:00.000-07:00

Recently, a friend sent me a copy of Bakke’s book, The Grid. Two days ago, after getting a draft journal article off my desk, I took it off my stack and cracked its cover. My hope is that the remainder of it is as good as its introduction and first chapter. It's quite an accomplishment; and a very well written one. She quickly gets to the heart of the challenge posed by integrating intermittent renewables (a tautology, once hydro is excluded) on p. 13. She writes ”Power production isn’t just an industry, it’s an ecology. And renewable resources are not just about the planetary good kept from public offer by corporations with other visions for their own profitable futures. Making American power is about how technological, biological, and cultural systems work in concert to keep our lights on, our basements and roadways clear of flood water, and fresh fish on our tables. It’s delicate in all sorts of ways….it does the reader well to remember that the vulnerabilities of the grid as a technological system is intimately linked to the fragility of biological systems (like salmon runs), the intractability of legal and bureaucratic systems (like the endangered species act), and the unpredictability of meteorological systems (like wind storms)….The grid’s entanglement with culture and law and natural systems were always there. Renewables have just made these entanglements impossible to ignore…”

In that passage, she correctly frames the problem that studies asserting it's technically and economically feasible to go 100% renewable now...all we lack is a sufficiently strong will, miss.

image courtesy of Amazon.com

Will the Environmental Community Support New Major Dam Construction?

2017-07-11T14:23:00.004-07:00

Mark Jacobson and his colleagues have performed analysis, and argued forcefully based on that analysis, that it’s economic for the U.S., and 138 other countries, to rely solely on water, wave, and sun (WWS- only) to meet all power needs by 2050.

A paper published in 2015 (Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 2093) contains a table listing the number of new generators (and the size of each one) needed by type of generation if that goal is to met. The table below was contracted using Table 2 of that publication,

Number of Units Needing Installation (rounded):
On shore wind, 328,000;
Off-shore wind, 156,000;
Wave, 35,000;
Geothermal, 10,000;
Hydro, 3;
Tidal, 9,000;
Residential PV, 75,100,000;
Commercial/Gov. PV, 2,747,000;
Utility PV, 46,500;
CSP, 2,300.
Source: Jacobson, et. al., Energy Environ. Sci. (2015), Table 2, p. 2098

While only 3 new dams are needed, the analysis assumes that the installed capacity of one new dam is 1300MW. That means 3,900MW of new installed capacity. Putting that into context, when Grand Coulee was constructed, it had an installed capacity of just under 2,000MW. So, to reach WWS-only by 2050, he's assuming that two dams with the initial installed capacity of Grand Coulee (its capacity has since been expanded) would need to be built. That is just for the U.S.

image courtesy of tapabc.ca

Defining A Carbon Footprint - A Who Don It?

2017-06-19T11:23:00.000-07:00

Surely, defining a carbon footprint isn't difficult, right? There are various on-line tools available to allow anyone to do just that.

This is an issue I've been investigating. My reason for doing so arises from a concern that policy analysis and decision-making is as solid as the data are upon which they rest. Recently, I came across a passage in a report titled Carbon Emissions – a Northwest Perspective that summed up the challenge, "There are multiple ways to tabulate a carbon footprint and this report’s approach will differ from others. If carbon regulations are passed on the state or regional level then agreeing on a methodology for defining a carbon footprint will be critical." This excerpt zeros in on the issue of using data that are consistent in their development.

To date, my review of methods in California, Oregon, and Washington indicate that each state uses somewhat different approaches to develop the raw data used to define carbon footprint. My interest in this issue arose from reading a report by the Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC) to the Oregon legislature that included several graphs depicting a dramatic drop in CO2 emissions by two of the largest utilities in the state, PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric. In that report, the OGWC incorrectly state that a bill (SB1547) signed into law in March 2016 banned coal-fired electricity from being delivered to retail customers in Oregon after January 1, 2030. Even if that law contained such a prohibition, it would be unenforceable since all electricity on the West-wide system is just one big stew of electrons irrespective of fuel used in their generation. That led me to wonder how could the OGWC claim Oregon has reduced its CO2 emissions when there is no way for it to have cut actual CO2 emissions from coal-fired generating plants located outside its borders. My focus turned to examining how the three West Coast states (and the Feds) go about compiling CO2 emissions data.

Not only are state bragging rights established, that is its greenness, it also affects local politics. On the local level, what are we to make of the assertion on pg. 7 of the 2017 Progress Report to the 2015 Climate Action Plan that "Since 1990, Portland has welcomed 33 percent more people and 24 percent more jobs while carbon emissions have fallen 41 percent on a per person basis. This trajectory demonstrates that it is possible to achieve significant carbon emission reductions while growing the economy and population."

More to follow.

Buying Locally Made Helps The Environment

2017-06-16T12:04:00.002-07:00

What's the significance of buying products made outside Oregon or outside the U.S.? Certainly, there are many reasons why we might care about where - and how - the stuff we buy is made. What I'm interested in is how total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of goods purchased by Oregonians changes as the locus of production changes. For 2005, CO2e emissions from consumption of goods and services by Oregonians resulted in 56.7 MMT CO2e (note that some but not all the goods purchased were from within Oregon). If Oregonians purchased the exact same goods and services but they were all made outside of Oregon, those emissions would climb to 67.7 MMT CO2e. If instead of buying U.S. made products, Oregonians purchased that same bsdket of goods all made outside the U.S., total CO2e emissions jump to 113.5 MMT.

An EPA Document Worth Skimming, At Least

2017-06-12T15:00:00.003-07:00

Here's an EPA document that provides quite a good overview of greenhouse gas emissions from activity across the U.S. economy. Hopefully, this compilation of GHG data (including but not limited to CO2) provides both an understanding of the range of activities that generate CO2 but also how they chage over time. I've spent some of yesterday and most of today reading through it. Here are some initial observations, mostly with an eye towards activities in and around Portland and the Tri-County Area.

Land Use decisions affect overall CO2 emissions. For example, CO2 emissions are reduced by not converting ag. and forest land to development, or demolitions. For 2015, it’s estimated that the net effect from all types of land use changes/avoiding changes was a reduction in CO2 emissions of 670MMT CO2 equivalent.

Turning to electric generation, from 1990 to 2015 overall emissions rose 4 percent while carbon intensity rose ~16 percent. Most of the increase in carbon intensity was due to coal-fired generation being replaced with gas fired generators. Over that same time period, the contribution from renewables (mostly solar and wind) rose over 500 percent but remained an almost insignificant portion of total U.S. generation, at 5 percent in 2015.

Reports indicate that electric generation is the single greatest source of GHG emissions. What this Report also illustrates is that once the output from electric generation is allocated to the end-use sector, the Industrial sector is responsible for the greatest share of GHGs, about 29 percent. A close second is transportation, at 27.5 percent.

Passenger cars produced ~42 percent of total transportation GHGs in 2015; followed by freight trucks at ~23 percent; light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans at 18.0 percent; commercial aircraft at 7 percent; rail, 3 percent; other aircraft ~2 percent; pipelines at ~2 percent; and, ships and boats at ~2 percent.

A Cautionary Note About Using Trump to Argue for 100% Renewables Use

2017-06-11T15:07:00.002-07:00

By using Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Accord as a justification for setting a target of 100% renewable energy, our political leaders are in reaction mode. It's like having an alcoholic in the family, something I have personal experience with. If we use the alcoholic’s actions as the reason for our choice, we don’t change our narrative. It's incumbent on us to act with the gravity and wisdom that changing the narrative on climate change will require. One of the more important ways we can begin is to resist the temptation to engage in sloganeering. It’s not “Big Oil versus Humanity." We don’t wear the White Hats while “They” wear the Black Hats. To be sure, sloganeering seems to be part and parcel of marketing and politics. Even so, politics and governance are different specialties that require different skill sets.

Here are three steps we can take to be smarter about climate change.

First, stop drawing boxes around people and groups. Senator Sanders’ engages in simplistic framing when he uses “Big Oil” in the same way that Ronald Regan made conservationists the problem by quipping “conservation is being too cold in the winter and too warm in the summer.” While such simplistic slogans garner headlines, they don’t help us develop and implement effective policy. Like it or not, Big Oil as well environmental groups must be part of any effective solution.

Second, we need public discussion and debate on policies, such as committing our community to using only renewables to generate electricity, power vehicles, making cement and steel, and the plastic bins used to store bulk foods at the local market. When we have no public forum, or simply devolve into an us vs. them monologue, we limit our capacity to effectively work collectively to find policies that are grounded in facts.

Third, we need to be open to hearing truths we find inconvenient. By not doing so, we increase the risk that our efforts will amount to little more than squandering precious time and the public treasury on approaches that have little real hope of success any time in the foreseeable future, and that includes the year 2050. W have data and knowledge on the challenges we face trying to rely solely on intermittent renewable sources to generate our electricity. We have information on less costly and more effective approaches to cutting carbon emissions. We have information on how our local electric utility is connected to all other utilities throughout the Western United States and what that means for our ability to avoid using electricity generated from fossil fuels. Ignoring these facts, and the science behind them, is no different than the Trump Administration’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Accord.

Coal Generated Electricity Not Banned from Oregon

2017-06-09T12:34:00.000-07:00

A bill (SB1547) signed into law in March '16 does not contain language banning coal-fired electricity from delivery to Oregon's retail customers. Even so, the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s 2017 Biennial Report to the Oregon legislature (Report) erroneously reports the existence of such a ban after 2030. It also erroneously reports that both Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp (PAC) are prohibited from allocating to Oregon retail customers any cost or benefit from coal-fired plants. Figures 7-9 in the Report illustrate past and future CO2 emissions by these two utilities (Fig. 7 for PAC and Fig. 8 for PGE) and the statewide CO2 emission levels (Fig. 9) assume that Oregon takes credit for lowered CO2 emissions, even though SB1547 did not address coal plant operation in any way. Furthermore, the statute in question expressly permits PGE to continue to include costs of its portion of Coalstrip in Oregon retail rates after 2030. The law also permits cost recovery for market-based purchases, which will continue to include electrons from coal-fired generation as long as coal-fired generation operates within the geographic boundary of the Western Electric Coordinating Council. Further, there is no language in the statute that prohibits either utility from assigning power marketing revenues from coal-fired electricity generation to its Oregon retail customers. That's a good thing since PAC plans on operating 15 of its coal plants post-2030 and some into the 2040 timeframe. Click here for a link to the full report.

image courtesy of pacificenvironment.org

Portland and Multnomah County Adopt Renewables Resolution

2017-06-02T10:46:00.001-07:00

Trump’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord is deeply disappointing. His decision flies in the face of solid science on the role of human activity in climate change. What is needed is climate policy grounded in a solid set of facts. It is for this reason I take issue with the Resolution adopted by the Portland City Council and Multnomah County at the Council Session on June 1st.

"Until economic forms of utility-scale electricity storage are achieved, it will be next to impossible to economically replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with renewables."

Two policies were adopted in that Resolution. Both policies apply community-wide, not just to City or County facilities. One goal states that by 2035 all residents and businesses in the City and County will only use electricity generated from renewables. This means that PGE and PacifiCorp must deliver electricity to our homes and businesses that is only from reneables, such as, hydropower, wind, and solar. That exceeds the requirements those utilities face under state law, SB1547. While the 2017 Progress Report to the City’s 2015 Climate Action Plan states that SB1547 requires “…that the utilities phase out power from coal-fired plants entirely by 2035,” that law is silent on the phasing out of coal fired-plants by 2035 or at any time thereafter. The 2017 Progress Report also incorrectly asserts that the utilities must “…supply 50 percent of all electricity from new renewable resources by 2040.” What the law requires is that by 2050 those two utilities either have built new renewables or have purchased Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) equal to at least 50 percent of the electricity delivered to its retail customers. What this means is that PGE and PacifiCorp may continue operating existing and new fossil fuel powered generating plants as long as they meet the 50 percent by 2050 using RECs. There are a number of businesses that sell RECs. One such entity, The Bonneville Environmental Foundation, is located here in Portland.

As for the second objective, by 2050, 100 percent of the energy (not just electricity) used in both the City and County will be from renewable sources. This means that customers of Northwest Natural Gas will no longer use natural gas to heat their homes and businesses, or heat water, or cook their food, or dry their clothes. It also means that all automobiles, Tri-Met vehicles, all delivery trucks, all tractor-trailers, trains, ships and planes that operate within the City or County will no longer use gasoline or diesel fuel or recycled cooking oil or any other type of fossil fuel.

Even if the City and County had jurisdiction to enforce this Resolution, it would have to address the very real and significant technological and economic challenges of such a transition. My exchanges with the Mayor’s staff have revealed almost no understanding of these challenges. In addition, while the Resolution contains language that points to the very real harms that the low-income community faces from these environmental problems, the scientific literature contains numerous articles identifying the negative impacts of these renewable energy policies on those same groups. Further, last year the Northwest Power Planning Council released their 7th Power Plan. Part of that plan evaluated policies to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation. Relying on renewable sources of generation was among the costliest approaches.

So what is the answer? That's a good question, and one we should begin examining. The sad news is there is no silver bullet. Trying to accomplish the two goals in the Resolution will be very costly. It's unclear who will pay those costs. Will it be taxpayers through city and county budgets? Will it be utility ratepayers through higher electricity prices? Until economic forms of utility-scale electricity storage are achieved, it will be next to impossible to economically replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with renewables. Thankfully, the Resolution identifies energy efficiency as the first and best choice. Don't get me wrong, human causes of climate change are a fact. Even so, rushing to burnish the City’s and County’s green credentials is quite a bit easier than doing the heavy lifting that will be required by each of us to actually reduce our carbon footprint.

Does A Carbon Offset Cut Current CO2 Emissions?

2017-06-01T08:16:00.003-07:00

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on several factors that boild down to the qualityu of the offset. The Natural Reosurces Defense Council, NRDC, has a concise summary of the issue with some suggestions.

It's worth noting that at least there is the potential for a carbon offset to reduce current CO2 emissions whereas a Renewable Energy Certificate, in and of itself, will not reduce current CO2 emissions.

As the NRDC summary indicates, the first course of action is to reduce our current activity that is causing the CO2 emissions.

Does a REC Cut Current CO2 Emissions?

2017-06-01T08:05:00.000-07:00

No, a REC does not cut existing CO2 emissions.

If an existing fossil-fuels electricity generating plant is retired, that can cut exizting CO2 emissions if and only if a new one isn't built.

image courtesy of groupe-edsi.com

Who Gets to Claim the Environmental Benefit of a Renewable?

2017-06-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

The party who owns the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) gets to claim the environmental benefit.

This can lead to some counter-intuitive outcomes from renewables development.

For example, if Portland General Electric (PGE) builds a utility-scale wind farm in its balancing area, it could argue that it uses the electricity it produces to meet its needs. However, unless PGE keeps and retires the RECs associated with that electricity, PGE cannot claim the environmental benefits of that wind farm. It could sell the RECs to some other party and use the proceeds of that sale however it choses.

Alternatively, if PGE purchased RECs from any one of a number of entities that have them, then PGE could claim the environmental benefit of those RECs even if it didn’t build the PV solar or utility-scale wind farm.

image courtesy of renewablechoice.com

Peeling the Onion - Going 100% Renewable

2017-05-28T11:48:00.002-07:00

If your home or apartment has an electric stove, or an electric water heater, or an electric furnace, or and electric clothes dryer you're helping Portland with such a goal. If you also own an electric vehicle and only use it, or walk, or bike that’s a help too.

If any of your appliances operate on natural gas, or propane, or fuel oil, you'd need to replace them with ones that operate on electricity. That means using an electric water heater or a heat pump water heater. Your oil or propane or natural gas furnace would need to be replaced most likely with a ducted heat pump or perhaps one or more thru-the-wall heat pumps. Your gas range would need to be switched out for an electric one. Same with the clothes dryer.

As for your vehicle, you’d need to retire your gas-powered (or diesel, or biofuel) car, even if it's a hybrid, for an EV. However, keep in mind that your new EV still results in fossil fuel use.

As is reported at this link, "Even if cars soon start running entirely on electricity or hydrogen, they'll still need 100 gallons or more of oil to make their plastic parts, such as seats, dashboards, bumpers, and engine components." You could stop using a car and switch to using some combination of public transit that no longer uses fossil fuels, walking, or cycling. As your tires wear out, they'd need to be replaced by ones made of some synthetic materials in a factory that has zero carbon emissions. Plus, you'd want to pay attention to where it was manufactured. If it is overseas, that means fossil fuels were burned getting it to you.

Do you own any kind of travel trailer? Uh-oh. That probably means you have a larger fossil fuel powered vehicle tha gets lower gas mileage. You’d probably have to ditch the trailer.

If you wanted to be a purist about it, you'd also need to stop buying anything that comes n a plastic container, stop using Saran Wrap or aluminum foil type products. You’ll need to stop purchasing anything made of plastic, plus replace your plastic re-usable grocery bags with cloth ones, not buy a new plastic shower curtain liner, and on and on. Even if you shop at Whole Foods or New Seasons type stores, or a food co-op for that matter, you’d want to avoid buying anything that comes in a plastic bottle. Even bulk shampoos and bulk foods are typically stored in large plastic containers rather than some metal or glass.

Alternatively, you could avoid changing any of this by buying carbon offsets. Of course, they don't stop your direct emissions of CO2, (e.g., air travel, cruises, driving your fossil-fuels powered car) or your portion of CO2 emissions you are indirectly responsible for due to the choices you make (e.g., buying products in plastic containers, purchasing anything that requires fossil fuel to produce or dispose of at any stage of the product cycle, from resource extraction to deposit in a landfill or recycling center).

Now, about those PV panels on your roof, what do they contain, how are they manufactured, and shipped? And what about those wind turbines? Many wind turbine manufacturers are located in Asia, with China leading the list. As a result, if all the fossil fuel plants currently in existence in North America are shut down and replaced by PV solar and wind turbines plus a greatly expanded transmission system, until the manufacture of their components is also free of CO2 emissions, what we are essentially doing is shifting emissions from the developed world to the undeveloped world.

If we want to rely 100% renewably generated electricity shouldn’t we also want to make sure we achieve that goal and not worsen conditions in another part of the earth?

image courtesy of cityholistic.com

What About the Social Aspect of Climater Change?

2017-05-22T07:02:00.001-07:00

Recently, I happened to come across a reference to book titled, Where The the Air Stands Still. I came across it while reading an article in The Nation written with a focus on climate change and India. That article is worth a read. I say that even though it's substance was way out of for me considering that the "the climate change movement" looks a lot like the environmental and anti-war movements of past decades - mostly white and relatively affluent. It's striking to me that in the United States social justice groups have joined forces with environmental groups on this set of issues. That's striking because it's likely the case that those lower down the economic strata will be the last to reap any of the fruits of cultural and social changes required to get a handle on the problem of climate change.

Here are several examples.

1.The Citizens Utility Board (CUB), a legislatively mandated group advocating for residential consumers of utilities (in my view, primarily the low-income community) joined forces with environmental and renewable advocacy groups to push forward legislation that unfortunately will not achieve much CO2 reduction from electricity generation. Nonetheless, CUB and a spectrum of environmental and renewable advocacy groups did join forces.

2. Washington State had a carbon tax ballot measure on this past November's election ballot. While it went down to defeat by a 60/40 margin, here again, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club opposed it. They joined forces with social justice groups to oppose it because it was designed to be revenue neutral, as is the one in British Columbia, the only carbon tax in existence in North America.

While there's an argument that those lower down on the economic food chain bear a disproportionalte share of the consequences of pollution, is that actually the case with CO2? What seems likely to be the case is that those same folks will likely bear a disproportionalte share of the costs assocaited with combating climate change.

image courtesy of Andrew Grossman

Under What Considitions Will EVs Be Manufactured?

2017-05-18T16:50:00.003-07:00

My post on how EVs will be taking over our roads in the not too distant future raises a question. Where will they be produced and under what conditions?

While working on Smart Grid and electricity to EV charging stations regulations, a theme that I heard at every conference was how the regulatory regime under which utilities operate was stifling innovation. What I was witnessing was the integration of communications with an industry that placed a high value on stability. In fact, as we rely more and more on digital technology and integration of all parts of life via the Internet, the need for quality power increases.

Yet, what I’ll call the “Young Turks” from communications companies wanted regulators to unleash the electric utilities so that innovation could flower. That, at the time when concerns about security of utility operations were morphing beyond security of the physical plant to now include communications networks with hundreds, if not thousands, of points of contact with the Internet.

There’s another issue that’s cropping up and that is working conditions at the Tesla factory in Fremont CA, across the bay from Sunnyvale. Here is one such story.

photo courtesy of Tesla

Could The Entire World Shift To Electric Vehicles In The Next Decade?

2017-05-17T21:38:00.000-07:00

A Story in Business Insider claims that the everywhere in the world, all new vehicles will be propelled by electricity. Not just Portland. Not just North America. In every country on the planet every new vehicle will be propelled by electricity. They report that's the conclusion of a think tank that analyzes disruptive technologies. Now, the article's title claims that every fossil fueled vehicle will vanish within the next eight years.

While the Preface to the report begins with "The analysis in this report is based on detailed evaluation of data on the market, consumer and regulatory dynamics that work together to

drive disruption," there follows a lengthily disclaimer that begins with the following, "Any findings, predictions, inferences, implications, judgments, beliefs, opinions, recommendations, suggestions and similar matters in this Report are statements of opinion by the authors, and are not statements of fact. You should treat them as such and come to your own conclusions based upon your own research." In other words, its as though they're saying "yes we've relied on data and analysis to reach our conclusions, but don't think we'd stake our financial future on them, they aren't fact-based, its just our opinion."

Near the beginning of their executive Summary, they assert "By 2030, within 10 years of regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles (AVs), 95% of U.S. passenger miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by fleets, not individuals, in a new business model we call “transport- as-a-service” (TaaS)." Not only do fossil fueled vehicles disappear, so does individual private ownership in favor of on-demand renting of transportation services.

With these kind of articles I run them through my simple reality check. For this story, my reality check is a rural county in the far Northeastern corner of Oregon. It's larger than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined, has a little fewer than 7,000 residents, and is cattle, hay, and horse country. There isn’t one traffic light in the county. Yet. There a few bronze foundries that have made the new cases for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in our nation’s capitol, the wreaths on the WWII memorial in D.C., and full size horses for the Ronald Regan Presidential Museum. Oh, and three larger than life size statutes of another former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, commissioned by, uh, him (I've seen one).

The report essentially argues that instead of buying a new fossil fuel pick up with “duellies” (two tires on either side on the rear axle), they'll buy an electric powered vehicle. Instead of buying a new fossil fueled combine, it'll be an electric one. Instead of replacing an aging tractor-trailer rig with a new fossil fueled one, it'll be an electric one. With all due respect, that's not going to happen anytime soon, let alone in the next eight years.

Right now, they don't even have one public EV charging station anywhere in the county because its 75 miles to the nearest larger city, La Grande. There are two folks who own a Prius. A friend of mine liked the car but traded it in because it wasn’t sturdy enough. In fact, Joseph, which is a major tourist destination, doesn’t even have reliable Internet service yet. The closest fiber optics cable ends five miles away in the county seat in Enterprise.

One of their major concerns right now is a fear that the hospital might close if Trumpcare passes. Since its only a Level IV ER unit, they can help stabilize someone who has had a heart attack, or has a clot, or needs major medical intervention, its going to be an evacuation via either a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft.

How I know this is I own property in Joseph. Power interruptions aren't uncommon from the fall into the spring. My longest period without power was a little over 24 hours. And my place is in town. There's one transmission line into the county. You go to the post office to get your mail, unless you live outside of town in which case its delivered three times a week.

On top of all that are the upgrades to the electricity distribution system that would be required to support such a transformation.

Perhaps someday all new vehicles will run on fuels that don’t emit carbon, including but not limited to EVs. Perhaps someday individual ownership of those vehicles will be replaced with individual renting of transportation services. No doubt that is already occurring in very selective urban parts of North America and among a limited set of residents. Widespread, let alone 95 percent of miles traveled using rented EVs, will come sometime after I’ve gone out to pasture, which hopefully will be long after 2030.

If you care to read more in this area, see: Tony Seba, or Stanford Continuing Studies.

Is Carbon The Only Effluent of Concern?

2017-05-15T14:47:00.003-07:00

Image courtesy of dnrec.deleware.gov

No. To be sure, its of great concern but there are other gasses that cause the earth's temperature to rise and they're referred to as greenhouse gasses. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a nifty list, which is reproduced below. To be sure, CO2 is the leading culprit, by far.

Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.

Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Fluorinated gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").

An Overview Article on Deep De-Carbonization of the Electric Grid

2017-05-12T15:28:00.003-07:00

One paper that recently crossed my desk helps immensely with keeping track of all the numerous studies conducted on deep de-carbonization of the electric grid. It's well written, concise, and provides an even-handed review of the challenges shifting to a high level of renewables use. In the process, it discusses in a very readable and straightforward way various stages in shifting the electric sector from where it is today to different levels of future renewable electricity generating sources.

Click this link to read the study.

image courtesy of c|net

What is the Cost to Reduce Portland's CO2 to Zero?

2017-05-11T08:55:00.003-07:00

As this paper explains, RECs - bundled with the electricity or unbundled from it - transfers ownership of the attributes (not electricity if unbundled) of the renewable to the REC purchaser. Earlier in the same paper, the authors note that the Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled, "One Renewable Energy Certificate represents the environmental benefits or attributes of one megawatt-hour of generated renewable energy."[Emphasis added]

One cheap way to achieve that goal is for Portland to buy RECs.

Let's figure out how many REC's Portland needs to purchase to reduce its carbon footprint 100%. Keep in mind that all the vehicles, industrial processes, commercial processes, how electricity is generated, and other uses for fossil fuels from lawn mowers, Vespas, gas grills, and on and on would still be in use.

We need four pieces of information: (1) where the renable project assocaited with one REC is located, (2) Portland's current carbon footprint, (3) price of one REC, and (4) the shelf life of one REC.

1. Where is the renewable project located?

The BEF has REC's for sale from projects located around the country.
For illustration only, using one from from Kansas, the amount of CO2 emission avoided per MWh is determined by system operations where Kansas is located, and that is the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). In this example, one MWh of REC is equivalent to 1,616.38 pounds of CO2 avoided.

2. How Many REC's Must be Purchased from Renewable Projects?

Number of REC's = Portland's Carbon Footprint Before REC Purchase/1616.38 (if RECs are purcahsed from within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), one MWh REC is equivalent to 903.92 pounds of CO2 avoided.
For illustration, if Portland is responsible for 20MMT of CO2, to reduce that to zero would require 12,207 REC's (or ~ 22,000 RECs if only purchased from renderable projects within WECC)
NOTE: The Portland region had a CO2 footprint of ~ 32MMT as of 2010.

3. What is the Total Cost of the REC's?

BEF as of this writing shows a price of $8/REC. Then, $8*12,207RECS = ~ $98,000.
If RECs are purchased from projects within WECC, then the amount of REC's needed jumps to about 22,000 and the cost rises to ~ $177,000.

4. What is the Shelf Life of These REC's?

If the shelf life of each of these REC's is one year (two years), then it would cost Portland $98,000 ($177,000) for one year (two years) of coverage.