RES vs RPS

Part of my job as an environmental analyst involves tracking environmental regulations. It involves a lot of reading, and at times, feels as if I don't understand what I read. With the internet and quick ability to google, there are tools online to help decipher regulations.

One of the topics I've had to follow is climate change regulations. Since Congress has dropped the topic of climate policy--well, they have not dropped but it certainly has fallen lower on the ladder after the 2011 fiscal budget--states such as California have had to move ahead with their own programs. Last week, California signed into law a billed called SB1x2 (Senate Bill 2x) which extends their state renewable portfolio standard (RPS). An RPS is a states requirement to have a portion of their state's electricity come from renewable sources by a certain year. California, under Gov. Schwarzenegger, already implemented a 20% RPS by 2010. The most recent CPUC report mentions they achieved about 17-18%. SB1x2 gives the state the ability to extend this RPS in years come to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020. On September 23, 2010, the California EPA also passed an RES (renewable energy standard) to achieve 33% by 2020. What is the difference between the RES vs RPS?

Does the difference have to deal with who has authority to regulate the rule? The PUC (public utility commission) overseas the achievement and the progress of the RPS. CA EPA (California Air Resources Board) has the authority to implement the RES (see CARB's RES website). It was a directive under Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-14-08 to establish a 33% renewable energy target by 2020. Now that it's a new Democratic administration under Governor Brown, is this Executive Order moot?

According to the PUC's June 2009 report, the RPS is a legislative action, meaning it is a different agency under the CA government that oversees the RPS. It's the CA Congress vs. ARB (CA EPA) that implements the RES. A summary explains that the RES is independent from the RPS. The "RES also applies to a broader range of regulated entities than the RPS such as the Publically Owned Utilities." In reading this summary, I would like to highlight the differences:

• Applicability- "Senate Bill 2X applies to all electricity retailers in the state – investor-owned utilities (IOUs), municipal utilities, and independent sellers. The current 20% standard applies only to investor-owned utilities and independent sellers." (Simitian website). It makes sense that the PUC would oversee the RPS if only IOUs are regulated. THis begs the question, what is the difference amount POUs, IOUs, and municipal utilities? I know IOUs are the big regulated utilities like SDGE, PG&E, and SCE. POUs are like LADWP. "The PUC would handle oversight of the state's investor-owned utilities, with the air board retaining the authority (under the state's climate change law) to loosely oversee and, if need be, punish public utilities" (E&E)
  
• Coverage-The RES and RPS also differ in terms of coverage. The RPS looks at the state and how much of the state shoudl come from renewables, but it also dicates the IOUs to set targes to achieve the renewable objective. The RES regulates all utilities.
  
• Treatment of in-state vs out-of-state electricity- "RES Allows Unlimited Unbundled/Tradable RECs. The RES allows an unlimited use of “unbundled” or “tradable” RECs (TRECs) for compliance purposes. In contrast, the CPUC has limited the use of TRECs under the RPS, at least temporarily. TRECs allow the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity to be sold or traded separately from the underlying electricity." (Summary). The PUC limited the use of TRECs, I assume, because they wanted to ensure that a certain % of in-state generation came from renewables. I don't remember the exact % but a large portion of CA's energy comes from out-of-state cheap coal. So the RES increased the flexiblity to use TRECs to comply and unbundled RECs, which means that you can use credits to comply. A credit can equal to 1KW of renewable energy that could ahve been produced outside CA. You are using out-of-state renewable power to comply with a state requirement.
  
• Means to comply- "Senate Bill 2X does not require utilities to reach the goal at any cost. The PUC must approve renewable energy contracts, and utilities may be granted exemptions if the price of energy, or the difficulty of moving it into the state’s grid, make the cost excessive" (Simitian website)
• Statute vs Regulation- "Unlike the RPS, which is a codified statute, the RES remains a CARB regulation. A new Governor could order CARB to revise the RES, similar to Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-21-09, which prompted the RES in the first instance." (Latham and Watkins summary)
• Targets- "Under the new law, all load-serving entities need to satisfy a 20% by December 31, 2013, renewable procurement target, a 25% target by year-end 2016, and a 33% target by December 31, 2020." (platts)

Year	Renewable Electricity Standard3	SB 1x2
2012 through 2014	20 percent	20% by 12/31/2013
2015 through 2017	24 percent	25% by 12/31/2016
2018 through 2019	28 percent	n/a
2020 and annuallythereafter	33 percent	33% by 12/31/2020

Helpful websites:
RPS update
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA25R
LTPP http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm

Nuclear in the US

The Japan earthquake has brought into question the safety and support for nuclear power. Before I make a hasty judgment call, I want to recall the background: what is really going on in Japan? The papers flash the pictures of local folks getting scanned, as if in an airport terminal, for radioactive material that could be on their hair or body. E&E (Environmental and Energy news) reports that U.S. nuclear plants that have applied to the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for an extension in their license to operate another 20 years are now being questioned. Certain policymakers such as the NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) press the NRC to consider the impact of earthquakes or seismic activity before they extend Entergy's license to operate the 1,028 MW Unit 2 and 998 mW Unit 3 of nuclear facility, Indian Point. This a great map of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. I'm not sure if my assumption is right but it seems like the midwest does not have that many given the lack of transmission lines to carry the power to where it's needed. According to a July 2010 report and EIA from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, the amount of grid-tied photovoltaic interconnections is less than 1,400 MW. You start to realize the value of nuclear when 1 nuclear plant has enough electric supply than all of the solar capacity combined in the U.S. As I learn more about this situation, I hope we, Americans, learn about improving saftey but not conjure an artificial fear of all things nuclear. Nuclear is a part of our energy future.

Manchin's Dead Aim

Governor Manchin of West Virginia aired a commercial for his campaign to run for the Senate. It's called "Dead Aim": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

In the ad, he shoots a hardcopy of a proposed cap and trade bill with a rifle. Ok, so cap and trade is bad for West Virginia, but what does such an action reflect on us as a nation? Does literally shooting a bill connote any sign of progress? No, it gives the impression of killing a bill, killing change. If the U.S. is ever going to have a climate change policy, it won't happen any time soon if states just kill the bill. West Virginia, and states alike, ought to promote a bill that could work for their states, not just shoot down any bill.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know the entire story. West VA is a coal state, much like Indiana, Ohio, Wyoming, and Colorado. They may or may not support the idea that climate change is real. They may or may not see climate change policy as necessary. It may just be another tax in a recession environment. Nevertheless, what kind of campaign ad is this? I'm disgraced that these kinds of ads actually appeal to voters, but I'm biased as a NJ resident. I suppose the animal rights activists get the same feeling by seeing politicians appeal to other voters who are hunters.

Let me clarify that I don't intend to suggest that West VA change it's beliefs. If they are against climate change policy, so be it. The U.S. has 50 states, all entitied to their own beliefs. I don't believe shooting a climate change bill and airing this on public television is the right direction. If we replace climate change policy with any other policy against West Virigina, do they all deserve to be shot and killed? I would have preferred him to say, "we will fight to make this bill right for our state," or show an image of the Senate debating the issue. Senator Manchin (D) shooting a rifle at a cap and trade bill reminds me of the lack of progress in the U.S. on climate change policy.

First Federal GHG regulations- Light Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and CAFE Standards- established by the EPA and DOT Natl Highway and Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Today, the EPA and DOT (Dept of Transportation) passed the first federal greenhouse gas regulations. You may ask, why is this significant. Ray Lahood, head of the DOT, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson set up standards for motor vehicles, including an average fuel economy of 35mpg by 2016. My 2010 Carolla LE averages 34. Will it still last by 2016?

The layperson may think, oh, it's only cars that are impacted, but this is not true. Greenwire explained this well: "When vehicle standards take effect, greenhouse gases will officially become 'subject to regulation' under the Clean Air Act, which will trigger Clean Air Act permitting requirements for industrial sources like power plants, refineries and other large facilities." The standards fall under Title II of the CAA regulating tailpipe emissions. The new vehicle standards should save 1.8B, not million, but billion barrels of oil (equivalent to 50M cars off the road) and reduce 1B GHGs.

So what do these rule entail?

• Vehicles (both cars and trucks) must meet a 250gram CO2/mile in 2016 models- manufacturers will have to meet these limits. Will the costs of cars be any different from today as a result of having to meet these standards? EPA says the average cost will increase by less than $1000
• EPA will try to have a credit trading program for fleet averaging.
• Advanced Technology credits- incentivizes commercialization of advanced GHG/fuel economy technologies such as EVs, hybrids, etc.

THe Rule is in effect 60 days after publishing. The emission control requirements take effect Jan 2, 2011 and do not immediately trigger PSD program requirements for stationary sources.

So what's going on in the climate change arena? Here's an update.
EPA is moving ahead with regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the time that Congress moves on a potential climate change bill. On XX date, Senator Kerry (D-MA) mentioned that Congress expects to have a revised Senate bill this year given that he and Senator Harry Reid prefer this.

At least 10 industry groups, 12 members of Congress, eight business associations, and three States (collectively, Petitioners) have filed petitions against EPA regarding the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases (EPA signed on December 7, 2009). In order for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, they need to classify them as endangering public health. The House, under Representatives Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Skelton (D-MO), issued a joint venture between the Agriculture and Armed Services subcommittees to petition the endangerment. Likewise, the Senate, under Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), have scheduled to vote on the petition by mid-March on the Senate floor.

The antoginism for the endangerment and the speculation of the core scientific data on which the endangerment is based have not slowed the EPA from acting.

Scientific American article

Scientific American has an article in the Nov 2009 issue entitled, "A path to sustainable energy by 2030." My question: is a sustainable energy future realistic? I hear so much ho-hum, and I'm tired of talking without action, debating of whether the science--or global warming for that matter--is real. My belief is that Americans, but not just Americans, are wasteful consumers. I flipped on the TV show, Extreme Homemakover, and though I admire the work that the show does for families in need, I happened to flip to the part when they installed a flat screen TV in a renovated home. It could have been 32in. It just reminded me that when Americans think of a better life, we think of having bigger cars and fancy things. Better lifestyles consume more energy. NPR reported that a dazzling flat screen tv can lead to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere up to a half-ton of carbon. A 50 in plasma tv can consume up to 500 KW which takes 0.5 ton of carbon from a coal-fired powerplant.

Check out the stats from NPR:
"Still, your friendly neighborhood coal-burning power plant would emit a half-ton of carbon dioxide every year to keep this one TV on for five hours a day — and that's in energy-saving mode. For comparison, the 32-inch LCD in its brightest setting pulled about 115 watts. That's the equivalent of about two incandescent light bulbs or nine or 10 compact fluorescent lights."
I'm not trying to tell anyone to stop buying flat screens. My main concern is if everyone in American wants to advance him/herself and have a better salary, a better life, how can our future be sustainable if a better life demands more of the resources that are already limited. Americans don't make smart choices. We retrofit a house for a needy family with glitzy televisions that then increases their electric bills. We have to make smarter, sustainable choices. Does everyone really need an energy-guzzling TV to enjoy shows or movies?

If it has come across that I am pointing the finger to everyone else, I apologize, for I am a culprit of the crimes I have identified. My dreams include eventually having a moderately-sized home, traveling (god, airline emissions will bust my carbon footprint), and taking long hot showers which consumes energy and water.

So, are we on a path to achieve sustainable energy by 2030 as the article says? The author's plan calls for 3.8M large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and more renewables including geothermal, tidal, and rooftop PV installations. How much energy does the U.S. currently consume and will consume?

The avg U.S. home in 2007 consumed 936 Kwh or a ~1MWh to simplify. In 2008 according to EIA, 46% of the energy consumed in the U.S. (based on 2008 generation by source data) came from coal, 22% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro, and the remaining 6% came from a combination of other renewables (including solar, wind, municipal solid wastes, etc.). Barely 1% of our 2008 electric generation came from petroleum liquids (distillate fuel oil, etc.) most likely due to high oil prices.

Is Al Gore's goal of having 100% carbon free electricity in 10 yrs realistic--and itself sustainable--if since 1995, coal generation has provided 50% of America's electricity. We want the carbon-free electricity that currently provides ~1/4 of our electricity to become 100%?

The article presents the following arguments:

• renewables cost centers/KWh (production cost + transmission) is about the same as that of coal fired generation. Total overal construction costs for WWS system is ~$5trillion/yr for 20 yrs ($100T total) worldwide (excluding transmission).

I think the drawback of this story is that it mentions the challenge of the intermittency of wind and solar but does not delve into it nor present a chart. Saying the cost of renewable is on par with coal when the U.S. lacks the smart grid and transmission to move generation from where the wind blows to where it is needed is a deficit to this story. I think this story would have been strengthened if it didn't bury these issues but graphically and more clearly addressed them. Instead, it spends a page on saying that the lack of materials, such as lithium for electric car batteris and concrete and steel for wind turbines, could hinder the development of renewables. Yes, and the fact that if you build and generate, our grid is not sufficient, in its current state, to move the power.

I support renewables and a sustainable future. I commend Mark Jacobson (a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford) and Mark Delucchi (research scientist at Institute of Transportation studies at Univ of California, Davis) for recommending a plan. It is better than all of us who harp but do not have a plan. But I think the article needs to present all the potential hinderances to renewable development, not giving the impressing that renewable energy costs could easily be on par with the costs of coal generation. I think the article addresses the political and material obstacles, but not the financial obstacles fully. What is the total cost worldwide including tranmission? The cost to move the power from where the wind blows and the sun shines should be incorporated in the cost to generate renewables. Until that has happened, renewable costs are not going to be economic.

Green Washington

I returned from Washington D.C. on 9/15/09 after a 2-day meeting for work. There were signs of environmental concerns everywhere I went. A GW student walking on campus with a white, fitted T-shirt with the panda WWF (world wildlife fund) logo. I passed garbage dumps on which it was written that GW recycles. The Eldon Suites, where I stayed, had an energy efficient toilet that asked you to press separate buttons depending on if you did number 1 or 2. If it's just number 1, the bowl dispensed less water. Unless you dumped your towel on the floor, the hotel assumed you preferred to reuse your towel. As I gulped a bit of water before the day started, I gazed up to notice CFL bulbs in all the ceiling sockets. In all the subways, there were separate recycling bins for paper, cans, and regular trash. It's always a hopeful sign seeing as certain cities don't even have recycling bins. My Washington Post listed that it was made mostly from recycled paper, or was it 35%? My memory is not so great. IBM and Chevron ads flash so creatively on the TV reminding to conserve, help the environment, and prepare for a revitalized future of energy. If you walk through Newark airport, IBM ads span entire walls, some with stats such as how many billion gallons of water are wasted, a suitable ad placed next to the bathroom, a large consumer of water. Is this a sign of a general trend that cities and people are growing conscious of the environment? Conserving and protecting environment has always been on the Washington agenda, but I feel there are more signs that stand out reminding me that it is happening. Conservation and greening is happening around us. Everyone should jump on this boat. One city is different from the other. I return to NYC where progress happened when Penn Station finally separated paper waste from regular trash. I think cans are still being thrown with regular trash. I am hopeful that one city at a time will jump on the green boat and stress the need of conservation.