Groundswell: More States Join the Regulatory Push for Utility Efficiency

Performance incentives and cost-recovery mechanisms abound.


STEPHEN LACEY: JULY 25, 2013
Ratepayer-funded utility programs dominate the energy efficiency landscape in the U.S.

From 2006 to 2008, these programs more than doubled from $2 billion to $4.8 billion. And according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, these programs are expected to double again by 2025.

In order to encourage utilities to invest in efficiency, various states have measures in place to guarantee power companies don't have a disincentive to encourage less energy use. These typically come in two forms: fixed-cost recovery mechanisms like revenue decoupling, and performance incentives like shared savings that reward utilities that meet their efficiency goals.

In the last year, a number of states have added these regulatory structures, ensuring that a majority now have utility-friendly policies to boost efficiency programs. According to a new report from the Edison Foundation's Institute for Electric Efficiency (IEE), 31 states now have cost recovery tools in place -- thirteen with revenue decoupling and eighteen with lost revenue adjustments. That adds five new states to the list.







In addition, 28 states...

Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse: Are Microgrids Our Only Chance?

Leia Guccione and James Sherwood, Rocky Mountain Institute
July 26, 2013

The electricity industry’s been abuzz recently about the need for a more resilient grid. As a result, microgrids are quickly becoming the industry’s topic du jour. However, nobody is talking about what is likely the most compelling reason to invest in microgrids: to prepare for the zombie apocalypse.

Scoff at your own peril, but consider this: Doomsday Preppers—a reality TV show about families who stock up on non-perishable food, ammunition, fuel, and more in preparation for a potential apocalypse, zombie-induced or otherwise—is the most popular series of all time on the National Geographic Channel, pulling in 1.3 million viewers for the season two premiere in November last year. We love to speculate about (and for some of us, prepare for) our own theoretical doomsday. Witness the June release of the Brad Pitt feature film World War Z, not to mention the popularity of The Walking Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Resident Evil… need we go on?

If (or when) such a day arrives, communities with microgrids will stand the best chance for survival. Why? A well-designed microgrid—combining distributed, renewable resources such as solar PV and wind with smart auto-controls and energy storage — would continue to provide reliable power with little human control, keeping the lights on, even under chaotic circumstances.

No People, No Power: Human Operators Keep U.S. Electricity System Running

Such apocalyptic scenarios make it illuminating to conduct a “war game” exercise with our national infrastructure, and especially our electricity grid. What would be the first thing to go wrong with our infrastructure if society were thrown into disarray by brains-hungry zombies? Without human beings around to perform certain routine tasks, the electricity system will quickly cease to function. In regions dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation (i.e., the entire U.S.), power plants will shut down, or “trip,” within 24 hours (or less) without continuous fuel supply. As soon as one plant trips offline, voltage at various points along the transmission system will drop below preset thresholds, spurring a domino effect as automated protection devices kick in and disconnect additional sections of the network. This cascade of trips would bring the system to a standstill, and a blackout would ensue.

A Zombie Apocalypse Isn't the Only Threat to the Electricity System

...

The Climate Change Denier and the Utility Regulators

Six fallacies go unanswered at the NARUC summit.


HERMAN K. TRABISH: JULY 25, 2013
"The Myth of Carbon Pollution," a talk from Princeton University physics professor William Happer, went virtually unchallenged by the 200 U.S. utility regulators and others in the session at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioner (NARUC) summer meeting.

A distinguished physicist, Professor Happer has published only one paper on climate science, and it was not peer-reviewed.

Here are six flaws in Professor Happer’s reasoning in the talk:

1. Professor Happer opened by contending that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a benign gas: Humans breathe it out, plants need it to grow, and so on. However, these things are irrelevant to how CO2 acts to enhance the greenhouse effect and drive climate change.

2. “Does the fact that CO2 does not directly affect human health mean the EPA ruling that CO2 is a threat and must be regulated was incorrect?” a commissioner asked. Happer responded that CO2 indeed is not a harmful gas. The EPA’s finding that CO2 is harmful to humans was not made because the substance is harmful to breathe. The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court because CO2 emissions drive climate change and climate change threatens human health.

3. "The globe is not warming,” Happer said...

Solar energy threatening the future of US electricity industry?
By New York Times | 27 Jul, 2013, 07.01PM


For years, power companies have watched warily as solar panels have sprouted across the nation's rooftops. Now, in almost panicked tones, they are fighting hard to slow the spread.

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the U.S. electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity - the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates - accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation's power generation. And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities' ability to maintain the nation's grid.

"We did not get in front of this disruption," Clark Gellings, a fellow at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit arm of the industry, said during a panel discussion at the annual utility convention last month. "It may be too late."

Advocates of renewable energy...

European Investment Bank Cuts Lending to Fossil Plants, Supports Renewables

Tildy Bayar, Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World
July 25, 2013

LONDON -- The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.

...

The board said the standards ... are designed to reinforce support for investment in renewable power generation and energy efficiency across Europe. Richard Willis, EIB press officer, told REW that the move “brings up to date our ongoing focus toward renewables and reflects how we see our main focus on investment in the years ahead.” ...

... “We’ve set a standard unanimously agreed by all Member States which fully reflects current policy, but the guidelines haven’t been issued yet because we were asked that we would review and also tighten the limited exceptions that are in place to make sure we focus primarily on renewables, grids and energy efficiency.”

...

"We agreed that the overall new guidelines would be looked at in autumn next year — this is normal for any initiative the bank undertakes," said Willis. "We will look to see if the level of distinction between projects continues to be reflected by the 550 g figure, or whether technologies will improve so we could have a lower figure that would still enable [emissions] abatement and biomass investment." He also speculated that a "much stronger set" of climate targets could follow European elections next year, at which time "that would be taken into account."

..."really our main focus is for 90 percent of our future engagement to be in the areas of renewables, energy efficiency and grid networks to make sure renewables can have a key role in Europe's energy mix." Investment in grid infrastructure is crucial, he said, and "no single government or institution can pay for this alone; companies are stretched. We can play a role as a key source of finance, and also play a supporting role in providing technical assistance. As co-financier we support, on average, about a third of project funding, but we can do up to 50 percent, we can help bring in other financial sources, often from other banks which don't have such a large focus on and exposure to renewables but are happy to work with others to contribute much-needed capital for long-term investment."

...

Lower power prices and high repair costs drive nuclear retirements



Since October 2012, electric power companies have announced the retirement of four nuclear reactors at three power plants. The four reactors have a combined capacity of nearly 3,600 megawatts (MW). The recent retirements are the first since 1998. Decisions to retire the units involved concerns over maintenance and repair costs and declining profitability.

The recent reactor retirements will decrease the total number of operating nuclear reactors to 100 and will reduce total U.S nuclear net summer capacity by 3%. Specific information on each retirement is included below.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3 (2,150 MW total)
The most recent retirement announcement was issued by Southern California Edison (SCE) on June 7. SCE decided to permanently retire SONGS units 2 and 3 near San Diego. New steam generators were installed in Unit 2 in 2009 and in Unit 3 in 2010. In January 2012, a small leak was discovered inside a steam generator in Unit 3, and both units were shut down to evaluate the cause of the leakage and to make repairs. Both units have remained shutdown since then. SCE had submitted plans to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to restart Unit 2 at reduced power, and the NRC was reviewing the restart plans. However, concerns over the length of the review process and the high costs associated with steam generator repairs led SCE to retire both reactors. The potential effects of these units' continued outage was explored in a previous TIE article....

...this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to ... overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes.

<snip>

If one assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance, at best reactors can achieve very-short-term, 90% load factors. During the first 30 years of US-commercial-fission experience (beginning in the 1950s), proponents say nuclear-load-factor averages were 50%. With more reactors than other nations, the US has 104 plants. Nuclear proponents say their lifetime-load-factor average is 71%. UK load factors are similar. Only 7 global reactors (1.7% of 414)—mostly those with lax design/standards/enforcement in developing nations—have ever eliminated original ‘‘bugs,’’ then later achieved short-term, 90% load factors. Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation .
Rather than 71 or 79%, however, most nuclear-cost studies... assume 85–95% nuclear-load factors,...a lifetime-fleet average never achieved by any nation. When the pro- nuclear MIT (see later discussion) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies recently reported US-nuclear-load factors of ‘‘about 90%,’’ they admitted this figure covered only the last 5 years, included no new plants, and ignored lifetime-average data and early-shutdown reactors, all of which reveal the correct, lifetime-load average to about 70%. Obviously assessors should use national, lifetime-load averages, not short-term load factors, and neither those for the highest-performing reactors (that likely have deferred maintenance), nor those for the lowest-performing reactors (e.g., 14% load factor for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, reactor.

wtmusic What it means is that emissions trading is a scam.
In every circumstance where emissions trading schemes have been enacted carbon output has gone up.
Smoke and mirrors (mostly smoke).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112749397#post9

Study: More Renewables And Efficiency Would Greatly Help Solve U.S. Water Problems
by NA Windpower Thursday July 18 2013

...

“In our water-constrained world, a 20-year delay in tackling the problem leaves the power industry unnecessarily vulnerable to drought and exacerbates competition with other water users,” says John Rogers, co-manager of EW3. “We can bring water use down faster and further, but only by changing how we get our electricity.”

According to the study, more than 40% of the U.S.’ freshwater withdrawals are used for power plant cooling. These plants also lose several billion gallons of freshwater every day through evaporation. Furthermore, the report says increasing demand and drought are putting a greater strain on water resources.

...

However, according to the report, a pathway that includes strong investments in renewables and energy efficiency would greatly reduce power generation’s water use and carbon emission.

Under such a scenario, water withdrawals would drop by 97% from current levels by 2050, with most of that drop within the next 20 years. The study says that approach would also cut carbon emissions 90% from current levels, mostly in the near term. A renewables path would also be a much cheaper path for consumers, the report adds.