Transcript Renewable Energy in California

Renewable Energy in
California
Brian C Prusnek
Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
The views and opinions discussed in this presentation are my own and
not representative of the Schwarzenegger Administration
1
Background
By law established in 2002, California
Investor Owned Utilities must procure 20%
of their power from renewable resources
by 2010.
2
The Major Criticism…
“The framework and process for
implementing California's policy bears little
resemblance to…other states and
has…taken longer than…processes used
in most states. Indeed, we are unaware of
any state RPS process that comes close
to approximating the detail, complexity,
and duration of the process in
California.”[1]
[1] http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-300-2005-011/CEC300-2005-011.PDF
3
Detail, Complexity and Duration
 Unnecessary oversight and process
 Utilities go through renewable solicitations AND general solicitations.
 Solution: Set goal and allow renewables to be treated like other resources
under an Integrated Resource Planning approach.
 Early fears of above-market costs created additional
process
 To remedy this, a cost socialization element was created whereby an
administratively established market price, the Market Price Referent
(MPR), is set annually.
 Renewable projects above the MPR, require that utilities have “above
market prices” socialized over entire system rather than from its customers.
These above market costs are called Supplemental Energy Payments.
 Kill one bird with two stones?
 The RPS is further complicated because the Public Utilities Commission
determines the MPR and approves renewable contracts whether they are
above or below the MPR. But because of existing law, if the cost of the
approved project is above the MPR, the utility applies to the Energy
Commission for approval to gain access to SEPs.
4
Other Challenges
 Only hydro (less than 30MWs) counts
 Transmission, transmission, transmission
Transmission Lines Planned
Otay Mesa (2007)
900
Tehachapi (Seg. 1) (2009)
300
Devers-Palo Verde (2009)
1,200
Trans Bay Cable (2010)
400
Tehachapi (Seg. 2-3) (2010)
400
Green Path/Sunrise (2010)
2,400
up to 12,000
Frontier Multi-State (2011)
Tehachapi (Seg. 4-11) (2011)
3,800
Trans West Express (2012)
3,000
Sea Breeze Cable (2013)
0
2000
4000
6000
MW
8000
10000
12000
5
Focus on the Positive
RPS based on energy, not capacity
Significant renewable resource opportunities
FERC decision allows renewable
transmission to be recovered in the
Transmission Access Charge
Million Solar Roofs Initiative and world
leading energy efficiency programs
Climate change law makes the RPS the floor
rather than the ceiling
6
IOU Actual and Forecasted RPS Generation
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
GWh
30,000
Pre-2002 Contracts
2002 Contracts
2003 Contracts
2004 Contracts
2005 Contracts
2006 Contracts
Pending Approval
Short-listed Bids
Expired Contracts
RPS Target
7
Wind
Generation
Solar
8
Existing California Renewable Generation
and Possible Additions to meet the 20% RPS Goal by 2010*
8,000
7,090 MW 13,039 MW Total
7,319 MW Additonal
5,720 MW Existing
7,000
6,000
MW
5,000
4,577
4,000
Additional
3,191 MW
Existing
3,000
1,214
1,765 MW
2,000
993 MW
1,000
1,977
2513
228
765
465
-
Geothermal
Biomass
1,300
Wind
* Data on additional renewable resource is based on a current CEC studies on renewables.
Potential retirements of existing resources and repowering projects are not included.
Solar
9
Recommendations
Renewables should be integrated into
utility general procurements
Target should be set – end of story.
Transmission must be addressed
If climate change legislation is developing,
it makes little sense to mandate a large
amount of renewable resources
10