Preview Newsletter
sfce aug 4
-
Energy Incentive Program Added to Clean Power Plan
Aug 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to help states transition more quickly to renewables and energy efficiency projects in order to comply with the final Clean Power Plan released Aug. 3. The incentive program would be a voluntary matching fund... -
The president calls for a greener America
Aug 3, 2015 | The Economist
By M.S.L.J
Blasting air conditioners, revving gas guzzlers and pumping oil, Americans have long attracted censure for their wasteful ways. After all, they produce a disproportionately large share—15 %—of global carbon dioxide emissions. But new rules from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced on August 3rd, signal a green... -
Obama Climate Plan Squeezes Coal as China Fights Pollution
Aug 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Aibing Guo and James Paton
The Obama administration’s plan to curb U.S. coal use will ripple across the globe to Asia, where the world’s biggest consumer and miners are balancing demands for cleaner air against cheaper energy. The hard line in President Barack Obama’s Clean Energy Plan released Monday compounds pressure from a similar... -
A Clean-Energy Breakthrough
Aug 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Fred Krupp
With the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan now final, the era of unlimited carbon pollution from U.S. power plants is finally coming to an end. That’s excellent news, because climate change has put us in the race of our lives—and the countries that move the fastest toward clean energy will be the most competitive, create... -
Five Takeaways on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan
Aug 3, 2015 | Council on Foreign Relations
By Michael Levi
The final version of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (his carbon dioxide regulations for new and existing power plants) will be released later today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many details are already online. The new rules are an important step forward but certainly not without their flaws. Here are five important things... -
Storage Batteries May Help Save Europe's Solar Market
Aug 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stefan Nicola
Europe's slowing solar-panel market may be revived by 2017 as households buy batteries that allow them to store power, making rooftop photovoltaic installations cheaper to run than buying from the grid, REC Solar Holdings AS said. -
Clinton: Solar heavy, nuclear light?
Aug 3, 2015 | FierceEnergy
By Jaclyn Brandt
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's newest climate goals are being heard across the industry, with many renewable advocates wondering how it will affect them. Clinton's plan has a heavy reliance on solar energy, but the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said they don't believe she can achieve a low-carbon plan without nuclear plants ... -
Wind, Solar Cheer as Coal Vows Battle on Obama’s Energy Plan
Aug 2, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Alex Nussbaum, Jessica Summers, and Mark Chediak
The wind and solar industries cheered while coal companies vowed to kill President Barack Obama’s new limits on climate-change pollution as details of the historic regulations emerged. The rules, to be unveiled at the White House Monday, include tougher limits on planet-warming carbon emissions... -
Are Small Changes Eating Away at Net Metering?
Aug 3, 2015 | Th Energy Collective
By Ivy Main
Many owners of solar homes were surprised this spring to get letters in the mail from their utilities, informing them of pending changes in Virginia’s net metering rules. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission will be writing regulations to implement a law passed this year that was applauded for increasing the commercial net metering... -
Solar, Storage, Enviros Square Off Against Gas for California SGIP Dollars
Aug 3, 2015 | Greentech Media
By Eric Wesoff
California's Self-Generation Incentive Program is a generous subsidy intended to spur development of low-emissions distributed generation. But the complicated calculation of just what qualifies as "low emissions" has been the subject of lively debate at the California Public Utilities Commission... -
Germany's renewable energy share grows to 12.4% in H1 2015
Aug 4, 2015 | See News Renewables
By Tsvetomira Tsanova
August 4 (SeeNews) - Renewables met 12.4% of Germany’s energy needs in the first half of 2015, rising from 11.8% a year back as a result of strong winds, capacity additions and high rainfall. Industry research group AG Energiebilanzen (AGEB), total energy consumption grew by 2.9% to 6,720 petajoules (PJ) or 229.3 million tonnes of coal equivalent. -
Taj Mahal vulnerable to pollution, no study on other monuments
Aug 4, 2015 | Business Standard
The government has not carried out any specific study to identify monuments across the country with regards to their vulnerability to climate change and air pollution, the Lok Sabha was informed today. It has, however, identified world heritage icon Taj Mahal in Agra as a monument which needs to be protected...
Industry News
full
-
Energy Incentive Program Added to Clean Power Plan
Aug 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to help states transition more quickly to renewables and energy efficiency projects in order to comply with the final Clean Power Plan released Aug. 3.
The incentive program would be a voluntary matching fund to encourage states to invest early in solar and wind power projects and in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities.
The plan stipulates that the program will reward states that invest early in renewable energy generation and demand-side energy efficiency measures that either generate carbon-free megawatt hours (MWh) or reduce end-use energy demand during 2020 and/or 2021.
Participating states will receive a matching allowance from the EPA, or an emissions rate credit, that adds up for all states to be equivalent to 300 million short tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
The EPA is promoting incentives for solar and wind power projects specifically because they can be implemented quickly, and it is addressing concerns that the Clean Power Plan could potentially shift investment way from these zero-emitting technologies, the agency said in an Aug. 3 fact sheet that accompanied the final rule (see related story).
Replaces Efficiency Requirements
The voluntary program replaces the energy efficiency requirements that were incorporated into state compliance strategies as part of the proposal.
But Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said he is optimistic that states will still use energy efficiency to meet their compliance targets.
“The final rule fully allows energy efficiency to be part of compliance plans,” he told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3.
“The EPA is providing a lot more guidance for states on how various different [efficiencies] can be included, so that should make it easier for states,” he said. “Once you have the target, every state has to meet it the best way that they can. By far the most important part is that it's clearly allowed as part of compliance plans.”
Sean Donahue, an attorney with Donahue & Goldberg LLP, said he thinks that even though these requirements are no longer in the rule, states will still turn to energy efficiency to save money.
“I'm sure a lot of states and companies will use energy efficiency because it's a cheap way of achieving emissions reductions,” he told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3.
Helping Low-Income Communities
The program specifically offers additional credits for energy efficiency projects in low-income communities. The intent is to encourage further investment in these communities the EPA referred to as “vulnerable or “overburdened,” due to their proximity to power plants and likelihood of being least resilient to the impacts of climate change.
Nadel said the early incentive program will help jump-start the market, particularly in low-income communities, which he said is “very helpful.”
Similarly, Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions and former deputy administrator of the EPA, told reporters Aug. 3 that the voluntary program would “equalize the opportunity to save money.”
The demand-side energy efficiency projects in low-income communities will receive two credits for every 1 MWh of avoided power generation, which involves a full early action credit from the state and a full matching credit from the EPA.
Meanwhile, wind or solar projects would receive one credit for 1 MWh of power generation, with half the credit coming from the state and the other half from the EPA.
For states to join the program, they must submit a nonbinding statement of intent to participate with their compliance plans. States have until 2016 to submit their compliance plans, although they can extend that until 2018 to allow for stakeholder and administrative processes.
The EPA said in the final rule that it will meet with states, utilities and other interested parties to get feedback on the incentive program, and then it will publish information on the design and implementation of the program.
Link (subscription needed): http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=73651379&vname=dennotallissues&fn=73651379&jd=73651379
-
The president calls for a greener America
Aug 3, 2015 | The Economist
By M.S.L.J
Blasting air conditioners, revving gas guzzlers and pumping oil, Americans have long attracted censure for their wasteful ways. After all, they produce a disproportionately large share—15 %—of global carbon dioxide emissions. But new rules from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced on August 3rd, signal a green shift in American policy. The Clean Power Plan introduces a raft of emission-reduction goals, tailored for each state, which the EPA believes will trigger a drop in carbon pollution from power stations by 870m tonnes by 2030, a 32% decline when measured against 2005 levels.
An extension of the Clean Air Act of 1970, these are the first-ever national standards for curbing carbon pollution from power plants, America’s largest source of greenhouse gases. States will be able to decide for themselves exactly how and when they cut their emissions, but need to submit their plans by 2018 and to start acting on them by 2022. The plan reckons that new efficiency measures and greater access to gas and renewables will lower energy bills for American families.
A little over a quarter of electricity will still come from coal. But a new incentives programme, not touted in previous drafts, encourages states to turn to wind and solar power instead of simply swapping coal for gas. Though gas generates half the pollution of coal, the plan aims to deter states from getting too hooked on another fossil fuel. Instead, the EPA will award pollution credits to states that increase energy efficiency and move quickly to generate power from renewable sources. These credits can then be used to offset emissions released at a later date. The new plan also gives states more freedom to pursue carbon trading among themselves. The share of American power generated by renewables is projected to swell to 28% by 2030, up from around 13% now.
The new standards have been met with both fanfare and fury. Jennifer Macedonia from the Bipartisan Policy Centre, a think-tank, praises them for setting more realistic expectations for states and utilities, which now have an extra two years to prepare themselves. This reprieve creates “a better chance of reaching a long-term solution,” she says. Others see the dallying as a climb-down, and complain that cutting 2005 emissions by 32% by 2030 shows a pretty puny level of ambition, given that the boom in natural gas from shale—which is much cleaner than coal—has already reduced emissions by 15% in the past decade.
The smooth passage of the plan is unlikely. While the Supreme Court deemed carbon dioxide a pollutant in 2007, thereby placing it under the EPA’s remit, legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan will come thick and fast. Coal groups and many Republican politicians reject the standards outright. Many are eagerly anticipating a new Republican president, who would have little interest in maintaining one of the bolder initiatives of Barack Obama’s environmental legacy (though his administration’s increased fuel efficiency standards may yet do more to curb greenhouse-gas emissions).
Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, three of the top Republican candidates for the top job, have swiftly poured scorn on the Clean Power Plan. (Hillary Clinton, more predictably, has come out in favour of the initiative.) A number of coal companies have threatened to sue the Obama administration. But the power of coal groups is weaker than many realise. Although touting the industry's employment possibilities is an effective rural rallying cry, almost twice as many people work in the solar industry than for King Coal. Besides, international markets and a supply glut are doing plenty of harm to this dirty fuel: the price has more than halved in the past four years. More than 20 American coal firms have gone bust since 2012, including Alpha Natural, which filed for bankruptcy on August 3rd.
Even if domestic leadership on the EPA’s proposals remains uncertain, the plan suggests America wishes to occupy a bigger role at the climate negotiations in Paris this December. Ethan Zindler, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, says the measures finally “sync up international promises with domestic policies.” America’s emissions-reduction deal with China late last year now has more bite, for example. And any indication that America is more open to multilateral negotiations is welcome news elsewhere in the world, even if many allies had hoped for a more ambitious environmental agenda.
Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/08/environmental-policy
-
Obama Climate Plan Squeezes Coal as China Fights Pollution
Aug 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Aibing Guo and James Paton
The Obama administration’s plan to curb U.S. coal use will ripple across the globe to Asia, where the world’s biggest consumer and miners are balancing demands for cleaner air against cheaper energy.
The hard line in President Barack Obama’s Clean Energy Plan released Monday compounds pressure from a similar stance by China, the world’s biggest coal burner and carbon emitter, to significantly reduce reliance on the fuel. It’s also giving ammunition to opponents of the hydrocarbon in top exporting nations including Australia in the run up to international climate talks in Paris this December.
“The news out of the U.S. will toughen the rhetoric against global coal use,” said Helen Lau, an analyst at Argonaut Securities (Asia) Ltd. in Hong Kong. “For coal as an industry, it’s definitely bad news.”
The rules, partly designed to put the U.S. on track to meet the goal Obama laid out in negotiations for a global climate accord, come as prices struggle to recover from the lowest in almost eight years amid slowing growth in China, the top consumer of energy, metals and grains.
As countries from China to Brazil make commitments to curb carbon emissions, Australia’s coal miners say technology exists to limit pollution from their fuel, which releases twice as much carbon when burned as gas. And, as Glencore Plc’s head of coal assets Peter Freyberg said in June, it’s “the cheapest way of powering people out of poverty.” Meanwhile, the country’s gas industry is promoting itself as a cleaner-burning alternative. ‘Civil War’
“The civil war going on between the gas and coal industry is not helpful,” Dean Dalla Valle, chief commercial officer at BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s biggest miner, said last month in Sydney. “It plays into the hands of others.”
Miners in Australia are focused on how China and other buyers in Asia respond to Obama’s plan. Coal was Australia’s second-biggest export earner with shipments valued at about A$40 billion ($29 billion) last year, according to the Minerals Council of Australia.
“More important is what’s happening in China, that’s what is key to the market” in Australia, said Mathew Hodge, a Sydney-based analyst at Morningstar Inc. “China, Japan, and Korea -- they are the customers. What they decide is really important.”
China will limit coal consumption to about 4.2 billion metric tons by 2020, reducing the fuel’s share of its energy generation to less than 62 percent. Coal accounted for 64 percent of China’s energy consumption last year, according to the country’s National Energy Administration. ‘On Its Knees’
Shipments by China Shenhua Energy Company Co., the country’s largest coal producer, dropped 24 percent in the first half of 2015 from the same period a year ago. The company blamed falling consumption and “heightened pressure for environmental protection.”
“Coal is on its knees,” said Tom O’Sullivan, founder of Mathyos, a Tokyo-based energy consultant. “Declining usage in China, and environmental issues in the developed, particularly U.S., and developing worlds may be putting unprecedented pressure on the sector.”
In a plan formally adopted earlier this month, Japan said it expects coal to generate about a quarter of the nation’s electricity by 2030. To do that, the country will need to depend on new coal technology that’s more than twice the cost of traditional plants. It will also need to restart a significant number of its 43 nuclear reactors, shuttered since the 2011 Fukushima disaster. U.S. Pressure
Declining demand among U.S. power plants may force the country’s coal to be exported, at a time when benchmark prices in Asia have fallen about 50 percent in the last four years.
“U.S. coal may find its way back to market which could affect supply and demand, adding pressure to low prices,” said Hendra Sinadia, deputy executive director at the Indonesian Coal Mining Association.
While Indonesia is the world’s largest exporter of the fuel for power generation, Sinadia sees the U.S. as driving the agenda for the richest countries.
“The U.S. is a member of G-7,” he said, referring to the world’s seven biggest economies. “And the G-7 has given signs it may follow U.S. policy.”
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/obama-climate-plan-squeezes-asian-coal-as-china-fights-pollution
-
Aug 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Fred Krupp
With the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan now final, the era of unlimited carbon pollution from U.S. power plants is finally coming to an end. That’s excellent news, because climate change has put us in the race of our lives—and the countries that move the fastest toward clean energy will be the most competitive, create the most jobs and have the healthiest air. It’s a race to the top, and the Clean Power Plan gives the U.S. a better chance of winning.
Some question whether the EPA has the authority to take this step. They are arguing a point that was settled eight years ago. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has a clear responsibility under the Clean Air Act to act to reduce emissions of climate-altering pollution.
The plan is also necessary. Without it, a lack of basic federal standards to reduce power-plant emissions created a bad mix of uncertainty for industry and unsafe pollution for the climate. The longer we delay addressing climate-change issues in a serious way, the greater the risk posed to national economic growth, long-term investment and job creation. The Clean Power Plan represents an important step toward addressing those risks.
The EPA has created a prudent framework for action choosing the most flexible options available. The final standards are eminently reasonable. Indeed, the plan gives each state broad latitude to design an approach that fits its needs and maximizes its strengths, while ensuring that emissions goals are met at the least cost. Opinion Journal Video Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot discusses the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever national standard imposed on existing power plants. Photos: Getty Images
States can choose to expand renewable energy and distributed generation, rely more on lower-emitting sources, or a host of other approaches. Each state has the opportunity to align emissions reductions with its own policy priorities, boosting innovation and job creation, modernizing its energy infrastructure, and saving businesses and families money by improving energy efficiency.
States should use this watershed moment to remove existing barriers to energy freedom and consumer choice. Outmoded rules in many states make it harder for homeowners to install solar panels—and Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear that they want more control over the electricity they use.
Driving down carbon emissions will ramp up the energy transformation that is already happening across America. What once seemed exotic—electric cars, highly efficient appliances, competitively priced clean energy—is becoming commonplace. In 2014, the clean-energy market in the U.S. expanded by 14%, to almost $200 billion. That is bigger than the domestic airline industry. Solar panels cost one-fifth of what they did in 2008, while installed capacity of solar is six times higher. Wind power now costs less than coal in some places—and will likely be less expensive than even natural gas within the next 10 years. There is positive data on the jobs front, too. Clean energy now delivers three times as many jobs per dollar invested as fossil-fuel investments.
Because of this progress, many states are well-positioned to meet the 2030 goals that the EPA first proposed in the Clean Power Plan last year. Most states are already well on their way. And now this growth will happen even faster, as the EPA’s plan gives companies the incentive to make investment decisions that focus on cleaner energy. For the customer in states that lower emissions by creating opportunities for more efficient use of energy, the plan will mean that home electric bills will be lower and individual control of electricity use will be higher.
These new standards will cut climate pollution directly, and they have already helped drive climate action at the international level. We saw direct evidence of that last year when the U.S. and China made an unprecedented joint announcement of their climate goals.
It is also important to understand that this plan will not solve climate change by itself. Millions of Americans joined the fight for these standards because we have a responsibility to leave the world a better place than we inherited. There is no silver bullet for this fight, and we will have plenty of opportunities to build on this step in the months and years ahead, including:
• Reduce methane pollution that accounts for one-quarter of today’s warming.
• Continue American leadership to get other nations to cut climate pollution, and to agree on targets that will meet the scale of this challenge.
• Sign into law a comprehensive, market-based system that puts a price and limit on climate pollution from major emitters and gives businesses further incentives for clean-energy innovation.
Bill Gates recently said, “If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free.” I believe that the Clean Power Plan will help establish that environment for innovation and lead us to a cleaner, healthier and more prosperous future.
Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-clean-energy-breakthrough-1438642705
-
Five Takeaways on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan
Aug 3, 2015 | Council on Foreign Relations
By Michael Levi
The final version of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (his carbon dioxide regulations for new and existing power plants) will be released later today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many details are already online. The new rules are an important step forward but certainly not without their flaws. Here are five important things, good and bad, that today’s dueling press releases might not tell you.
This is an impressively creative “save” given legal and political realities – particularly on the international front
The President’s proposed regulations on existing power plants (released last year; today’s rules are the final version) were central to meeting the U.S. target of a 17 percent emissions cut below 2005 levels by 2020. But the EPA received extensive feedback from industry and analysts claiming that meeting the 2020 goals proposed in the draft rule would require a dangerously rapid transformation of the U.S. electricity system late this decade. This apparently led the EPA to delay the first year during which states must comply with the new rule from 2020 to 2022. But that left a big problem: the United States would be unlikely to deliver on its international commitment to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020.
So the administration came up with a clever save: a proposed “Clean Energy Incentive Program” that will reward states that cut emissions in 2020 and 2021 by in essence giving them weaker targets from 2022 to 2030. In principle, if states fully utilize that program, the United States will still be in the neighborhood of meeting its economy-wide 2020 target. (“In the neighborhood” because there’s enough uncertainty in the U.S. energy system to make 2020 emissions unpredictable even with the best policies possible.) At the same time, the EPA strengthened its emissions targets for 2030, offsetting the new headroom created by the incentive program and keeping projected 2025 emissions similar to those in the draft plan.
None of this matters much when it comes to aggregate emissions. But it matters a lot for how the United States is seen internationally. On that count, the administration deserves applause.
No one really knows whether the United States will meet its 2020 target
The biggest weakness in the draft Clean Power Plan was its vulnerability to litigation. In particular, its emissions targets were determined in part by calculating how much emissions could be reduced through improved energy efficiency, a tactic that made the whole rule vulnerable to being struck down by the courts. (This is ostensibly a rule governing power plants, but power plants can’t improve consumer efficiency.) The administration wisely ditched that element, leaving the plan on much firmer legal ground.
But reliance on the Clean Energy Incentive Program introduces a substantial new source of uncertainty. To conclude that the United States will still meet its 2020 goals, the administration is assuming that states will fully utilize the opportunities created by the incentive program. The program gives special credit for electricity generation from new wind and solar installations and from new energy efficiency in low income communities. But it’s entirely plausible that the special credit won’t be enough to get states to make power plants install all the wind and solar that the EPA is assuming they will. (It’s also fair to say that the odds of every state fully utilizing its opportunities is close to zero.) And, the farther states end up away from fully utilizing the incentive program, the farther the United States will be from its broader 2020 target without other policies. Which leads to…
The United States may need additional policies to deliver on the 2020 target
The administration is now relying heavily on wind and solar to meet its 2020 target. But if the Clean Energy Incentive Program isn’t enough to incentivize investment there, the U.S. government will need additional policies on that front. The most obvious place to look is an extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar. But these are going to get very expensive (and perhaps politically unsustainable) if they remain in their current forms while investment ramps up to the level that the EPA envisions. Expect renewed administration focus on crafting some sort of legislative deal that would reform and extend the PTC and ITC, perhaps with a sunset around 2020-2021 as the Clean Power Plan phases in.
No one knows what mix of renewables, natural gas, and efficiency will result from the plan
There is a lot of reporting, including by many who should know better, claiming that the plan will result in massive amounts of renewable generation and no increase in natural gas above business as usual in the long run (2030ish in this case). This reporting is based on two things. First, the EPA, in developing its targets, uses “building blocks” – new renewables, improved coal plant efficiency, and extra coal-to-gas switching – and the new rule reportedly relies heavily on the renewables block. Many are concluding from this that states will be requires to massively increase renewables use. But – and this is really important – the “building blocks” tell you nothing about what measures states will actually use to comply. Once the building blocks are used to determine state targets, the states decide how to meet those targets. At that point, it’s as if the building blocks never existed. If a state wants to use only solar to meet its targets, it can do that. If it wants to use only natural gas or nuclear, it can do that too.
The second reason you’re hearing that the final plan will rely largely on efficiency and renewables is that when the EPA models the real-world impact of the rule, it reportedly foresees lots of new efficiency and renewable energy, and not much new coal to gas switching. But this is a feature of the EPA model, not something that the rule requires. In particular, the EPA model is well known to predict huge increases in efficiency. If, as many experts assume, it is substantially overestimating the efficiency response, you’ll see more coal-to-gas switching (and more renewables investment) in the real world response. Something similar applies to misestimates of renewables investment, though it’s not as clear there what the weaknesses of the EPA model may be.
This plan, while good, is far from perfect – but much of that is simply a reflection of political reality
The EPA estimates benefits well in excess of costs for the plan. Even if they’re way off, it’s likely that benefits will still exceed costs, making the new rules an important step forward.
That said, this is certainly not the best of all worlds. There’s no economic and little environmental rationale for restricting the new Clean Energy Incentive Program to wind and solar rather than including nuclear, coal with carbon capture, or coal-to-gas switching (with reduced credit to account for the carbon content of gas) – all the restriction really does is increase the cost of delivering the targeted emissions cuts. It also increases the risk that the United States won’t meet its international commitments for 2020. This one is an own goal – the EPA could have taken a more expansive approach to early compliance it if wanted to.
Beyond that, though, theoretically superior tools were basically out of political reach. Economy-wide carbon pricing legislation could have gone further in creating nationally uniform incentives for emissions reductions. (Of course, in the real world, economy-wide legislation would have had its own myriad carve-outs and distortions for various preferred technologies and industries.) It could have created incentives that cut across sectors (e.g. electric power and industry). It also could have generated revenues to reduce the federal deficit, help low income consumers, and assist industry in transitioning. The Clean Power Plan, in contrast, generates no revenues for any of this, though individual states might still raise money through their own implementation plans. But economy-wide legislation, whether cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, has been a political non-starter for years; one can’t fault the administration for not doing something that was politically impossible.
Bottom line: Politics has greatly constrained the realm of the possible for emissions cutting policy. A fundamental shift in U.S. politics could in principle yield something substantially better – but that isn’t the universe we’re living in. For the time being, the principal alternatives to the Clean Power Plan as it stands are inaction; a different set of EPA regulations that’s far less flexible (and hence less economically sound) or far weaker; or, potentially, large subsidies to a range of zero-carbon energy generators. The Clean Power Plan is a vastly superior way forward.
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/08/03/five-takeaways-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/
-
Storage Batteries May Help Save Europe's Solar Market
Aug 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stefan Nicola
Europe's slowing solar-panel market may be revived by 2017 as households buy batteries that allow them to store power, making rooftop photovoltaic installations cheaper to run than buying from the grid, REC Solar Holdings AS said.
Europe may add 9 gigawatts of panels in 2017 and 11 gigawatts in 2018, from 7 last year, as panels and batteries will be able to produce and store power at about 16 euro cents a kilowatt-hour compared with an average of 23 euro cents from the grid, Senior Vice President Luc Grare said in an interview.
Home batteries such as those from Tesla Motors Inc. and Daimler AG allow families to store and use power from panels instead of feeding it back to the grid. Panels added in Europe last year fell from about 11 gigawatts in 2013 and 22 gigawatts in 2011 as governments ended or cut renewables subsidies.
Nations shouldn't overcharge consumers for using or leaving the grid, Grare said Aug. 3. REC Solar, an Oslo-based panel maker that produces in Singapore, expects to disclose deals in Egypt soon, where a “very cooperative” government seeks to reduce blackouts by adding solar plants, he said.
It also plans next year to employ nine people in three sales offices in South Africa, Ghana and Kenya to pursue projects in the region, he said.
REC Solar, owned by the Elkem Group, a Norwegian unit of China National Chemical Corp., on Aug. 3 said second-quarter sales fell 4.5 percent from a year earlier to $168 million.
It sold half of its panels to the U.S. and plans to ship about 1.2 gigawatts this year.
Link (subscription needed): http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=73651361&vname=dennotallissues&fn=73651361&jd=73651361
-
Clinton: Solar heavy, nuclear light?
Aug 3, 2015 | FierceEnergy
By Jaclyn Brandt
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's newest climate goals are being heard across the industry, with many renewable advocates wondering how it will affect them.
Clinton's plan has a heavy reliance on solar energy, but the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said they don't believe she can achieve a low-carbon plan without nuclear plants sticking around.
Clinton's "Vision for Renewable Power" includes two national goals:Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox! More than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Clinton's first term. Generating enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years of Clinton taking office.
Clinton said the goals will "combat climate change, create jobs, protect the health of American families and communities, and make the United States the world's clean energy superpower."
Clinton's plan would also add renewable energy from varying different sources, incuding wind, hydro, geothermal, and other forms of generation -- as well as expanding the total installed solar capacity in the country to 140 gigawatts (GW) by the end of 2020. The goal would be a 700 percent increase from the 2015 level.
Different energy associations have different feelings about the goals, but the solar industry is (understandably) on board with Clinton's plans.
"We strongly agree with Secretary Clinton that solar can help power America, and we welcome her support for a steady, supportive federal energy policy that keeps in place the highly successful solar investment tax credit (ITC)," Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) President and CEO Rhone Resch told FierceEnergy. "The solar ITC has helped solar become one of America's fastest-growing energy sources with more than 20 gigawatts of total installed capacity already built -- enough to power nearly 4.5 million homes. Solar installations are forecast to continue to rise, reaching 8,000 megawatts this year. Clinton's ambitious goal for solar is only possible if solar continues its impressive trajectory. SEIA is working to extend the solar ITC and remove statewide barriers that inhibit the growth of solar."
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) explained that Clinton does mention "advanced reactors" in the future, but doesn't mention nuclear facilities as a part of that.
"Any program to reduce carbon emissions must preserve existing nuclear power plants and ensure a role for new reactor development, including advanced reactor technology," NEI Vice President for Policy Development and Planning Richard Myers said. "The Clinton campaign must articulate a vision that recognizes the clean air value achieved by license renewals for existing reactors and the addition of new reactors."
Clinton's goals include a one-third carbon-free generation goal by 2027, part of which will be reached by the installation of 500 million solar panels by the time 2021 rolls around.
Myers said the math just doesn't work out -- and Clinton's goals would take three to five times as many solar panels -- up to 2.5 billion -- for solar to meet the current electricity output of nuclear.
"Nuclear power plants are unique -- and uniquely valuable -- among carbon-free sources of electricity, because they are large-scale generators of 24/7, carbon-free power that operate at industry-leading reliability levels," he said. "Coupled with renewable energy sources, they can lead America's transition to a lower carbon portfolio. All presidential candidates should value the strength of energy diversity and the benefit it provides to consumers, our environment and our economy. Americans need reliable electricity, and they want clean air. With nuclear energy as part of the portfolio, they can have both."
Link: http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/energy-advocates-are-not-all-board-hillary-clintons-climate-goals/2015-08-03
-
Wind, Solar Cheer as Coal Vows Battle on Obama’s Energy Plan
Aug 2, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Alex Nussbaum, Jessica Summers, and Mark Chediak
The wind and solar industries cheered while coal companies vowed to kill President Barack Obama’s new limits on climate-change pollution as details of the historic regulations emerged.
The rules, to be unveiled at the White House Monday, include tougher limits on planet-warming carbon emissions and more incentives for renewables than originally expected. That may also mean fewer benefits for natural gas or nuclear power than anticipated. The outlook for coal remained bleak as ever.
“The renewable energy sector should be a clear winner while merchant coal-fired generators could end up the big losers,” Paul Patterson, a New York-based utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC, said in an e-mail. “Given the rules’ complexity and controversy, those who could likely stand to benefit the most in the end might be the lawyers.” A Brief History of Global Warming
Dubbed the Clean Power Plan, the package is Obama’s most ambitious effort to tackle industrial pollution that scientists blame for dangerous increases in global temperatures. The Environmental Protection Agency regulations demand deep reductions in carbon emissions by curbing reliance on coal and natural gas. The rules are designed, in part, to put the U.S. on track to meet goals the government has set out in negotiations for a global accord on climate change.
Shares of wind energy companies in Europe rose, including turbine makers Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Gamesa Corp. Tecnologica SA and Nordex SE.
U.S. power producers that have pushed hard in clean energy gained, including NextEra Energy Inc., the biggest North American producer of wind and solar energy. Most Comprehensive
“There is no question that today’s announcement is positive for renewables and it will be positive in the long term for the renewable business at NextEra,” Chief Executive Officer Jim Robo said Monday during an earnings conference call.
The final Clean Power Plan “will be the most comprehensive, far-reaching regulation ever promulgated by the federal government to impact the electric power sector,” Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based utility group, said by e-mail Sunday. EEI says utilities plan to shut or retrofit about 73 gigawatts of coal plant capacity by 2022, enough to power 36 million households.
Brian Deese, an adviser to Obama on energy and climate issues, told reporters on a conference call that the health and economic benefits of lowering carbon pollution under the plan will be four to seven times greater than the estimated $8.4 billion cost of the regulations.
“It’s a simple idea that will change the world: cut carbon pollution today so our kids won’t inherit climate chaos tomorrow,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council said Monday by e-mail. Best Option
The regulations, if they survive legal challenges, are expected to transform the U.S. power market, spurring the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants and encouraging their replacement with natural gas, renewables and other forms of low-or no-carbon electricity. The final version is expected to give states two extra years to comply, with the measure taking effect in 2022.
“In today’s marketplace their best compliance option is clearly solar,” Rick Umoff, counsel for the Washington-based Solar Energy Industries Association, said in an e-mailed statement. A more flexible timeline under the plan “will only further encourage states to act early so they can take advantage of the booming solar economy and any compliance incentives that the EPA might offer.”
The view was far different among coal companies, which are already slumping amid challenges from cheap natural gas and tougher pollution standards. Peabody Energy Corp., the biggest U.S. coal producer, last week suspended its dividend and cut its sales forecast. Miner Alpha Natural Resources Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection Monday, as expected. Opposing It
Whatever the details of Obama’s final plan, “it’s illegal and we will not stop opposing it until it is withdrawn completely,” Laura Sheehan, a senior vice president at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement. “The president’s relentless climate crusade cannot be put ahead of the priorities of hard-working Americans who will pay the ultimate price of staggering electricity bills and lost jobs.”
The National Mining Association, a Washington-based group that represents more than 325 companies involved in the coal business, said in statement that it’ll file a stay with the EPA, describing the rule as “the agency’s attempt to commandeer the nation’s electric grid.”
Miner Arch Coal Inc. urged the Obama administration in a statement Sunday to focus its efforts on low-carbon, fossil-fuel technologies instead of “premature and costly regulations.” Utility Impact
The impact on utilities will vary depending on each company’s mix of coal, nuclear and other fuels. The industry has pushed for a longer timeline to comply, arguing a quicker transition would threaten the reliability of the electric grid.
“We are hopeful that the EPA has taken into consideration the feedback they have received from utilities and other stakeholders,” said Paige Sheehan, a spokeswoman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corp., the nation’s largest utility owner by market value. “It’s a very dense regulation. We’ll take some time to review it.”
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the government-owned utility serving 9 million people in the Southeast, is prepared for the new rules, said Scott Brooks, a spokesman for the Knoxville, Tennessee-based agency.
“We’re already reducing carbon emissions,” Brooks said in a telephone interview. “We’re in the process of reducing coal units, increasing gas plants. We are bringing on a new nuclear unit sometime near the end of the year. We think we’re in a good position to meet whatever the rule looks like.”
With the apparent tilt away from natural gas and toward renewables, initial reports on the plan are “discouraging,” said Dan Whitten, a spokesman for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a trade group.
“The White House appears to be making a shift that ignores the market reality that natural gas is ready today to cost-effectively meet our environmental and energy challenges,” he said. He cautioned that the group still hadn’t seen the final regulations.
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-02/wind-and-solar-cheer-as-coal-vows-legal-battle-on-energy-plan
-
Are Small Changes Eating Away at Net Metering?
Aug 3, 2015 | Th Energy Collective
By Ivy Main
Many owners of solar homes were surprised this spring to get letters in the mail from their utilities, informing them of pending changes in Virginia’s net metering rules. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission will be writing regulations to implement a law passed this year that was applauded for increasing the commercial net metering cap to 1 megawatt, from 500 kilowatts. (The SCC case is PUE-2015-00057.)
Unbeknownst to anyone not working on the bill, a late addition to the text restricts the capacity of net-metered projects to just what is needed to meet the customer’s “expected annual energy consumption based on the previous twelve months of billing history or an annualized calculation of billing history if twelve months of billing history is not available.” And while the bill is otherwise directed at commercial installations, the added language contains no such limitation—hence the unexpected letters to homeowners.
Although customers with existing systems aren’t affected by the changes, the letters have prompted concern among consumers and renewable energy advocates, especially those who are working on the various “solarize” programs around the state that use bulk purchasing to bring down costs and draw in new customers.
According to many installers, limiting a solar array to the size that just meets a customer’s electricity needs won’t matter to most homeowners, because their roofs generally won’t accommodate more solar panels than that anyway. In addition, over-producing isn’t financially rational because the utility doesn’t have to pay you the full retail value of any extra electricity you produce.
But a problem arises when it comes to new construction, or when solar is added as part of an addition or renovation that will increase electricity demand, making past use an inaccurate predictor of future demand. The same problem would arise if a homeowner decided to buy an electric car and wanted to power it with solar. The law makes no provision for these situations, so the State Corporation Commission will either have to decide how these should be handled, or leave it to the utilities.
Leaving it to the utilities seems like a bad idea to people who have witnessed the tendency of Dominion Virginia Power and Appalachian Power to interpret ambiguity in ways that further constrain the solar market. Environmental groups and MDV-SEIA, the solar industry trade association, are filing comments urging the SCC to include language in the implementing regulations to ensure that customers have the right to install a solar array big enough to cover their needs when past use alone isn’t an adequate measure.
But let’s take a step back to look at the broader policy implications of the legislation. This effort to control the size of net-metered facilities is not just a pain in the neck for potential new customers, but it also runs counter to Virginia’s stated goal of increasing the share of electricity from renewable energy. If customers aren’t going to be paid more than a few cents per kilowatt-hour for their excess electricity anyway, surely it would be in everyone’s interest to let them build surplus solar to their hearts’ content (assuming their infusions of electricity don’t create grid issues, a problem that is best addressed directly). The same holds true whether we are talking about residential or commercial, solar or wind. People who are willing to take on the cost of building clean, renewable energy should be encouraged to do so, period.
In addition to restricting the size of solar installations, the new law makes other changes. Customers now must notify their utility 30 days prior to installation of the solar facility, rather than 30 days prior to interconnection, a change some installers say may benefit customers by alerting them to problems before an installation goes forward. Additionally, the utility must approve the facility before installation; however, language in the existing law provides only a few narrow grounds for withholding approval.
Finally, the new law authorizes utilities to charge customers “all reasonable costs of equipment required for the interconnection to the supplier’s electric distribution system, including costs, if any, to (a) install additional controls, (b) perform or pay for additional tests, and (c) purchase additional liability insurance.” It also states that the reason for this is “to ensure public safety, power quality, and reliability of the supplier’s electric distribution system.” The existing law had required customers to “bear the reasonable cost, if any, as determined by the Commission, to (a) install additional controls, (b) perform or pay for additional tests, (c) purchase additional liability insurance.”
A lot of people have asked how this bill passed without any public discussion of the restrictive language and its effect on homeowners. A fair question, and one I asked, too, because when it was introduced back in January, the legislation merely provided for an increase in the commercial net metering limit. However, a look at the bill history shows that, as often happens, the added language first appeared in a committee substitute distributed to legislators at the same meeting where it was to be voted on.
It wasn’t a nefarious deal; an environmental lobbyist helped negotiate the bill, and the solar industry signed off on the changes, all under pressure to get a deal done that would improve the prospects for solar in the state. But they were also distracted. The first week of February is crunch time at the General Assembly, with dozens of other important bills in play simultaneously, many of them going through rapid-fire changes likely to either help or hurt (mostly hurt) Virginia’s energy future and its environment.
The General Assembly cannot be called a deliberative body. With thousands of bills to deal with in a 45-day session, only a few people know what is going on, and those are usually the paid lobbyists. In this contest, the person with the most paid lobbyists wins. And no one has more paid lobbyists than Dominion Power. So when pro-renewable energy bills get amended, the results favor the utility.
Progress on renewable energy in Virginia tends to run more sideways than forward, and this is no exception. Over the long run, though, the utilities face a losing battle to control and minimize their customers’ access to solar. In the next few years, battery technology will upend the top-down structure of the utility markets, and utilities will plead for access to their customers’ batteries to help meet the need for peak power and grid services.
Until then, we renewable energy advocates, customers and industry members have to keep on educating legislators about what good policy looks like. Wind and solar afford us huge opportunities in decarbonizing the electric grid, reducing pollution, and increasing business opportunities in the nation’s fastest-growing energy sector. If we open up the market instead of constraining it, ever.
Link: http://www.theenergycollective.com/ivy-main/2255463/are-small-changes-eating-away-net-metering
-
Solar, Storage, Enviros Square Off Against Gas for California SGIP Dollars
Aug 3, 2015 | Greentech Media
By Eric Wesoff
California's Self-Generation Incentive Program is a generous subsidy intended to spur development of low-emissions distributed generation.
But the complicated calculation of just what qualifies as "low emissions" has been the subject of lively debate at the California Public Utilities Commission of late, since the calculation could exclude fuel cells or small gas engines from qualifying.
The Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) was reauthorized by Governor Jerry Brown last year and will continue to provide $83 million per year (through 2019) in upfront and performance-based incentives for eligible behind-the-meter generation technologies. These include wind, gas turbines, combined heat and power, advanced energy storage, biogas and fuel cells.
Meeting that emissions threshold is crucial for a number of fuel cell startups whose California business plans rely heavily on the SGIP.
Source: Base SGIP Incentive Levels for Eligible Technologies (from 2015 SGIP Handbook)
As per Senate Bill 861, a proposed decision has been handed down by the Michael Picker-led CPUC to "update the factor for avoided greenhouse gas emissions based on the most recent data available to the State Air Resources Board" for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity in the SGIP service areas (PDF of proposed decision here). I was told there would be no math
So if you're installing distributed energy generation in California and want access to the sweet SGIP incentives offered each year by the state, you soon might have to meet the new SGIP GHG Eligibility Factor as defined in the proposed decision, shown below.
Where: GHG EF: greenhouse gas emission factor EROLF: operating margin emission rate of load-following plants = 382 kg EROP: operating margin emission rate of peaking plants = 544 kg WFP: weighting factor for peaker plants = 8% RPS%: RPS portfolio requirement = 33% Emission rate of load-following plants = 368 kg LLF: line loss factor = 8.4% ERBLF: build margin ERBP: build margin emission rate of peaking plants = 524 kg
Source: Proposed Decision of Commissioner Picker, July 10
Figures shown are in kilograms of CO2 per megawatt-hour (kgCO2/MWh)
Plugging the proposed numbers into the equation yields:
GHG EF = (0.5 (382 kgCO2/MWh * (1 - 0.08) + 544 kgCO2/MWh * 0.08) + 0.5 (1-0.33 * (1 – 0.084) * (368 kgCO2/MWh * (1 – 0.08) + 524 kgCO2/MWh* 0.08))/(1 – 0.084) GHG EF = 360 kgCO2/MWh CPUC: 360 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt-hourThe proposed decision of Assigned Commissioner Picker "updates the greenhouse gas emission factor that determines eligibility to participate in the Self Generation Incentive Program" from 379 kgCO2/MWh to 360 kgCO2/MWh.
According to the proposed decision, in order to be eligible for SGIP incentives, "gas-fired technologies must emit GHGs at a rate no higher than this emission factor [360 kgCO2/MWh] averaged over the first 10 years of operation, and the calculation of a project’s emissions must take into account the assumed 1% annual degradation in electrical efficiency."
Although that series of numbers and letters shown above looks like a formula, it's actually more of a Rorschach test. Each subscript and variable can be interpreted and lawyered, subject to each policy team's cognitive bias and agenda.
The arguments are likely to be about which resources will be displaced when these SGIP sources come on-line and what resources won't get built because of the SGIP. What is the impact of behind-the-meter resources on total system mix and the RPS? What is the nature and impact of a 33 percent RPS grid compared to a 20 percent RPS grid?
Making their opinions known on this proceeding are the policy teams of natural-gas and solar firms and organizations such as SoCalGas, FuelCell Energy, SCE, CalSEIA, Bloom Energy, SolarCity, SDG&E and California Energy Storage Alliance. Here are some excerpts. SolarCity, CalSEIA: 282 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt-hour SolarCity and CalSEIA (PDF) contend that the proposed decision (PD) uses "a flawed methodology for calculating the final GHG Emissions Eligibility Threshold" and that the PD’s proposed calculation "does not appropriately apply the 33 percent RPS adjustment and will ultimately allow SGIP funds to be spent on resources that will increase, potentially significantly, GHG emissions in California." "Applying the 33 percent RPS correctly would result in a SGIP GHG eligibility threshold of 295 kgCO2/MWh. Including the 1 percent degradation factor, as proposed in the PD, a starting rate of 282 kgCO2/MWh or lower would be needed in order to meet this threshold over the course of 10 years." "In order to result in a net reduction in GHG emissions, an SGIP resource needs to have a lower emissions rate than the emissions of the generation it is displacing." "The PD incorrectly assumes that a MWh of SGIP generation this year means a MWh less generation from the marginal resource. In other words, while the deployment of BTM generation results in less dispatch of gas-fired generation on the margin, it also means less renewable generation will be procured by the utility. This effect is what the RPS adjustment is meant to capture." The current figure will mean that "SGIP will support some technologies that result in higher emissions than if those technologies were not deployed. This is inconsistent with the state’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions." "For fossil-fueled SGIP generators to provide net emissions reductions, their emissions rates need to be lower than the combined 67% marginal fossil resources and 33% RPS resources they displace. The build margin and operating margin concepts apply only to the estimation of that marginal fossil emissions rate. The 33% RPS adjustment factor must be applied to the whole factor to account for the fact that the BTM generation is displacing RPS generation by reducing the retail load on which the RPS obligation is set." SolarCity and CalSEIA contend that "an update to the formula to update the marginal emissions factor and the higher RPS is appropriate given that both of these factors are now out of date. Unfortunately, in making these changes, the PD inappropriately applies the RPS factor to a sub component of the underlying formula used to calculate the marginal emissions factor. This results in a significantly higher emissions eligibility threshold that will result in SGIP supporting the deployment of technologies that actually increase GHG emissions." Bloom produces 333 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt-hour
Bloom Energy's (PDF) natural-gas-powered fuel cells have drawn or reserved more than $400 million of the program's 14-year $1.4 billion total, according to the CPUC's SGIP worksheet. Bloom's spec sheet lists CO2 emissions of 735 pounds (333 kilograms) to 849 pounds (385 kilograms) per megawatt-hour. (A typical new combined-cycle gas turbine plant emits about 913 pounds (414 kilograms) of CO2 per megawatt-hour. PG&E's most recent independently verified CO2 emissions rate of 445 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (201 kilograms) is about one-third of the national average among utilities.) Bloom has emphasized that per the latest SGIP impact report, "Bloom is actually the largest GHG reducer in the SGIP program." Bloom also noted, "Distributed generation does not displace all of the generators on the grid, but rather generation from the marginal gas plants that the utility curtails in response to changes in demand, as well as transmission and distribution line losses. [...] This is why the present requirement for the SGIP program is 379 kg of CO2/MWh, which is well in excess of the PG&E average of 445 lbs/MWh." "Bloom cannot support the proposed update to the emissions factor, as it is based on data that are not supported by the record." Bloom added, "As noted by the PD and as evidenced by the wide variance of parties’ comments on the Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, there is no clear consensus about how SGIP technologies may interact with the grid in the long term." The company continued, "What is clear is that many SGIP technologies are reducing significant emissions today and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future." "It would be irresponsible to set an emissions factor that in effect would exclude projects that reduce GHG emissions today based upon uncertain assumptions of how SGIP technologies may impact the grid in 10 or 15 years. [Bloom] urges the CPUC to readjust the emissions factor and to do so based on data and facts rather than speculative assumptions. Bloom suggests that the program could be reduced "to a limited set of technologies and miss opportunities to deliver additional immediate GHG reductions so desperately needed in California." "Bloom Energy generally agrees with the concept that SGIP technologies will impact the operating margin in the near term and could theoretically have some impact on the need for new capacity in the long term. However, we find the PD’s methodology for determining the appropriate weight to assign to the operating margin and the build margin to be lacking in precision." The weight assigned to the build margin should be "less than 50%," suggests Bloom. The company "finds the use of a 50/50 weight to be arbitrary." The firm also suggests a remedy: "Since the aim is to develop a 10-year eligibility factor, the weight assigned to the build margin relative to the operating margin should be based upon the total number of years out of the 10-year time frame the project can be expected to impact the build margin. [...] SGIP technologies may partially displace the operating margin and partially displace the build margin." While Bloom Energy agrees with the CPUC’s decision to rely on current policy (33% RPS) rather than speculate on future policy (i.e., 40% or 50% RPS), Bloom Energy disagrees with the Proposed Decision's use of 33% renewables within the build margin. Utility PG&E is OK with 360 kilograms of CO2
PG&E "generally supports the PD" but has the following suggestions (PDF): "PG&E supports the updated GHG emission standard of 360 kgCO2/MWh for eligibility to participate in the SGIP until better analytics can be performed." "PG&E recommends that the Commission establish a process for additional analysis to support a forward-looking framework for evaluating GHG performance of all load-reducing technologies, including fossil-fueled distributed generation (DG) and advanced energy storage (AES) technologies." "The updated standard of 360 kgCO2 /MWh, which is equivalent to 794 lbs.CO2/MWh or 6,800 Btu/KWh heat rate for natural-gas fired generation, proposed in the PD, is reasonable. The updated GHG standard allows fairly efficient gas-fired generation to receive the SGIP incentive. The SGIP GHG performance standard has moved in the right direction, declining from 379 to 360 kg CO2/MWh, and is in line with the grid performance getting cleaner over time. However, PG&E believes the methodology used to derive this performance standard -- which assigns equal weight to 1) an emission rate determined using historical data and 2) an estimated emission rate of future generation not built -- lacks rigor." Khosla- and Gates-funded EtaGen: 424 kilograms of CO2
Adam Simpson, the co-founder of EtaGen, a startup building a "free-piston" gas-fired engine for backup power funded by Khosla Ventures and Bill Gates, disagrees on the weighting of build margin versus operating margin (PDF). Simpson uses a revised formula to arrive at a figure of 424 kgCO2/MWh as the new SGIP GHG factor. The Sierra Club: 295 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt-hour
The Sierra club also focuses on the build and operating margin portion of the test, correcting Mr. Picker's formula to determine the threshold to be 295 kgCO2/MWh.
The environmental organization comments, "Unfortunately, the proposed decision falls far short of ensuring SGIP realizes its purpose of achieving meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. The PD’s proposed 360 kgCO2/MWh eligibility threshold allows projects with greenhouse gas emissions close to 20 percent higher than a modern combined cycle facility to qualify for SGIP incentive funding. At 360 kgCO2/MWh, the 'SGIP' acronym more aptly stands for Subsidizing Greenhouse Gas Intensive Projects."
"The PD’s 360 kgCO2 /MWh eligibility threshold was derived through flawed application and overly conservative assumptions of the RPS. To correct the PD and ensure SGIP aligns with California’s climate objectives, the Commission should apply the RPS to both the build and operational emissions rate as done in D.11-09-015 and update the RPS assumption from 33 to 50 percent to reflect the reasonably foreseeable increase in state renewable requirements" (PDF).
The PUC commissioners will reply to the comments this week and vote on this decision on August 13.
Link: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solar-and-Energy-Storage-Square-Off-Against-Gas-for-California-SGIP-Incenti
-
Germany's renewable energy share grows to 12.4% in H1 2015
Aug 4, 2015 | See News Renewables
By Tsvetomira Tsanova
August 4 (SeeNews) - Renewables met 12.4% of Germany’s energy needs in the first half of 2015, rising from 11.8% a year back as a result of strong winds, capacity additions and high rainfall.
Industry research group AG Energiebilanzen (AGEB), total energy consumption grew by 2.9% to 6,720 petajoules (PJ) or 229.3 million tonnes of coal equivalent. The installation of more wind capacity in the country, coupled with favorable wind conditions, resulted in a decline in hard coal use. Consumption of lignite also declined.
The table below contains details on primary energy consumption in Germany by source in the first half of 2015 and 2014.
Germany has to cover with renewables 18% of its gross final energy consumption in 2020 under EU regulations.
Link: http://renewables.seenews.com/news/germanys-renewable-energy-share-grows-to-12-4-in-h1-2015-487050
-
Taj Mahal vulnerable to pollution, no study on other monuments
Aug 4, 2015 | Business Standard
The government has not carried out any specific study to identify monuments across the country with regards to their vulnerability to climate change and air pollution, the Lok Sabha was informed today.
It has, however, identified world heritage icon Taj Mahal in Agra as a monument which needs to be protected from air pollution, Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said.
"Taj Mahal in Agra has been identified as a monument which needs to be protected from air pollution. No nationwide exercise has been undertaken to identify specific monuments which are vulnerable to climate change and air pollution," Javadekar said.
He said that to protect Taj, a Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) has been notified and restrictions have been imposed.
The existing industries have to strictly comply with the 1996 directions of the Supreme Court, and no new or expansion in the existing units is allowed within TTZ.
"The government has established Taj Trapezium Authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for mitigation of pollution in TTZ area and to minimise adverse impact of pollution on Taj Mahal," Javadekar said.
Amidst reports pointing at the discolouration of Taj Mahal, a parliamentary panel had recently recommended that a "multi-pronged" strategy must be adopted to preserve the "pristine beauty" of the monument.
Noting that diesel generators in the area around Taj Mahal are a major source of pollution "adversely" affecting the monument, the parliamentary panel has urged Uttar Pradesh Government to implement the Supreme Court's directive for 24-hour power supply in the area, besides giving a host of other recommendations.Link: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/taj-mahal-vulnerable-to-pollution-no-study-on-other-monuments-115080400973_1.html
Industry News
full
Add recipients
Suggested