Breakthrough Blog
 
Is California's Renewable Energy Mandate Destined for Failure?
Last week's news that California's utilities will not meet the state's law requiring that 20 percent of all electricity be produced from solar, wind and other renewable sources is further evidence that regulation alone - particularly unfunded mandates - will not carry us into a clean energy future.

Share

By Alisha Fowler, Breakthrough Generation

Last week's news that California's utilities will not meet the state's law requiring that 20 percent of all electricity be produced from solar, wind and other renewable sources is further evidence that regulation alone - particularly unfunded mandates - will not carry us into a clean energy future.

prologis28amla_400.jpgIf California is to achieve its goal of generating 20 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2010, then it will need to make large investments in the infrastructure and technology to bring down the price of clean energy.

The Background

In 2002 California adopted an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Governor Schwarzenegger mandated that California's investor-owned utilities (IOUs), energy service providers, and community choice aggregators source 20 percent of the power they purchase from qualified renewable sources by 2010 with a longer term goal of 33 percent by the end of the following decade.

California's plan is bold yet also achievable as it sets a series of long-term goals to accomplish its objective.

So two years away from its first lofty goal, how is California doing? Quite poorly, I'm afraid to say.

IOUs in California have failed to meet their renewables obligations in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2005, renewables as a portion of total sales were 12% for PG&E, 18% for Southern California Edison, and 5% for San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). These IOUs are unlikely to meet the 2010 target of 20% renewables even if all pending contracts are signed, all currently short-listed bids are accepted, and all expiring contracts are re-signed. (Nemet, 2007)

All of these numbers and shortfalls point to significant problems when it comes to the implementation of California's RPS. The incentives provided to source 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources are sorely lacking, there are significant transmission barriers, and there are loopholes so large a hummer could drive through them. Unless these roadblocks are addressed, they will render California's RPS meaningless.

An Easy Way Out

The initial hope with an aggressive target like this is that there will be prompt development and adoption of new technologies so that the IOUs can meet the target at all costs. But, the details of the RPS regulations contain another option. Utilities can simply pay a penalty:

"The CPUC has set a penalty of 5 cents per kilowatt hour in the event that an investor owned utility does not meet its obligation, with an overall penalty cap of $25 million per utility annually." (CPUC, 2003)

$25 million per year is a small fee compared to pouring billions into research, development and demonstration of new technologies. Further, any new technology that would cost more than 5 cents over non-renewable sources is simply too costly to develop and the IOUs will choose to pay the fee. (Nemet, 2007) This modest penalty creates an easy opt-out strategy for utilities and severely limits the incentives for technologies that are otherwise close to being cost-competitive.

Another challenge to achieving the goal set by the RPS is the unequal distribution of renewable resources throughout the state. The cost of RPS compliance will rise sharply for utilities as the best locations for renewables - ie the sunniest and windiest spots - are snatched up. There are also shortages of appropriate wind sites to begin with. Competition for these sites coupled with a lack of transmission capacity is putting upward pressure on prices.

Infrastructure is a Major Barrier

Significant transmission constraints impede energy delivery from renewable energy resources areas to centers of energy demand - i.e. California's metropolitan areas -- and it will be very costly to construct the necessary new infrastructure. This presents a risky, and ultimately too costly, situation for electricity suppliers even as it creates attractive opportunities for renewable energy developers and their suppliers. When confronted with enormous cost barriers such as these, it is only natural that the IOUs will opt to pay a modest fee rather than pay to build the transmissions lines needed to access new renewable energy resources - costs that electricity consumers will ultimately have to pay...

Building the transmission infrastructure necessary to deliver renewables will be very costly, and it seems unlikely Californians will absorb even higher energy prices than they have today. Already, California's resolve in pursuing renewable energy policies has been shaken. In fact, Californians' position on drilling has shifted and 51 percent of Californians support drilling for the first time since oil prices spiked thirty years ago.

Loophole + Insufficient Infrastructure = Failure

The lack of government investment coupled with a huge loophole signals failure for California's RPS. The private sector will not, and cannot, do the heavy lifting necessary to make renewable energy sources viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Rather than provide utilities with an easy way out, California's government should adequately fund the implementation of the RPS in the first place and help bring new technologies to market. And the federal government should support all states' efforts to develop and utilize renewables through extension of the Production Tax Credits (PTC). If the PTC is not renewed this year, renewables will become 2 cents per kWh more expensive overnight!

The bottom line is this: unfunded mandates will not succeed without government support, no matter how good they sound.

   Like what you see? Subscribe to our RSS feed here...


Share


TrackBacks (0) 2 COMMENTS:

Sounds to me like the perfect reason to cap carbon. If the listed RPS technologies don't end up as cheap or scalable in real life as was projected, or if supply chain backorders backs them up, in an RPS your hands are tied and you are forced to miss the target. With a cap, the economy can more robustly turn to new measures, like waste heat recovery or more efficient industrial/chemical processes. The reductions get dictated by what is actually most cost effective, not what an outdated bill allows to "count."

Don't think our kids will be able to afford the bailout... Definately, we will not be able to exist as a nation if we continue down the fossil fueled path to depletion.

I like to promote SPT (solar power towers).

Too much Alternative Energy will distrupt our energy infrastructure within too short a timespan. How, 1, not enough powerlines, 2, already existing agreements from conventionals need to be honored. 3, putting all the eggs into one energy basket too soon will prove overcostly (and less needs to be finainced if we take longer like ten years).

Finaincing is what caused our current wall street problem!

We need a pay as we go aproach, one that allows a newer cheaper tech of say, 3 years from now, to become the energy egg. Now I believe that we can put all of our eggs into just solar and wind for instance, since they are so widely distributed across this great nation.

SPT's can store heat for electrical generation 24/7. Sure, they will have to be larger (to account for excess storage), but anything's possible in a 50,000 square mile patch of desert.

What about all those CO2 emissions caused by said very large SPT creation. Billions of large mirrors will require mining for raw materials, tranporting, creation, more transport, and so on until final assembly. Opponents of AE routinely pitch this silly argument hoping to "woo" you away from largescale. The reason why it is silly is because from an economic point of view, largescale will create jobs. Jobs are required to keep this nation on track. And from the eco, sure a few mega tons of CO2 will be exuded DURING THE INITIAL PHASE! Afterwhich, solar and wind generated electric mobility will build upon itself. Oh, and to counter the energy payback urgument even more... What do you think the billions of mirrors can do AFTER the SPT's themselves are decommissioned?

Dirty and broken as they may be, in thirty years, we should have 10 to 50 thousand sq mi of mirrors "focused flat" beaming the sun back into space from where it wants to overheat this world!
The deserts shall be cooler and the icecaps shall start to reform.

Only the SPT concept can do this.

We could all lay out mylar (the highly reflective kind), but it won't pay us to do so. You know, by not sending so much money overseas, GW revearsal, energy dividends, ect). Why would largescale renewable energy have to be decommisioned? Because something better and cheaper will come along, perhaps fusion or deep geothermal. But we don't have enough fuel and time to dwindle down until that happens (and we need the jobs).

Another reason "why" we can't have 100% alternative is because the very large nature of such will surely bring down the costs of fossils again... There is a market play (exactly that!) going on right now (and largescale isn't even developed yet). Gas will probably stay down just long enough to destroy AE investments, unless, and this is the hopeful, big if part, IF the people are willing to overcome this having to pay less for fossils thing!

So we shall shoot for the most percentage we can get and enact laws that favor largescale AE that stores heat for 24/7 juice generation.

Even if I have to pay more for it, Big deal, I'd quit smoking, that'll make the difference!

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use basic HTML tags for style)
Use the <br> tag for line breaks (returns).

HTML is allowed, but in an effort to prevent SPAM if your entry contains URL's it will be held briefly for moderation.

Please email comments@thebreakthrough.org if you're experiencing problems when trying to comment.

Breakthrough Blog
RSS Subscribe to RSS Feed

twitter Follow the BTI on Twitter

twitter Join the BTI on Facebook

donate to Breakthrough

Recent Breakthrough Blog Posts

While Japan turns away from nuclear power, South Korea sticks to its path

Where the Shale Gas Revolution Came From

Interview with Alex Crawley, Former Program Director for the Energy Research and Development Administration

National Journal Highlights "Beyond Boom and Bust" in Weekly Forum

Germany Returns to Coal

Archives
Categories
Contributors

Blog advertisement
Nau Clothing
 
 
Privacy : Contact