Achieving Low Carbon Growth:From Innovation to Market Expansion
Overview of Presentation:
• Multiple renewable energy and energy efficiency tools are available; but implementation is varied in details and effectiveness
• In this talk we will examine different policy and technology tools, focusing on the US, Germany, and California to keep these ideas rooted in practice
• Smart analysis and modeling tools are needed for the smart grid
• Transportation and stationary power, once separate, and now seen increasingly as linked through energy and climate and health/air quality issues
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
United States
California
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $1975 2005 % change
US GDP/capita 16,241 31,442 94%Cal GSP/capita 18,760 33,536 79%
2005 Differences = 5,300kWh/yr = $165/capita
Power Plants
Smart Grid functionality restores the balance
Hydro Power Plants
Nuclear Power Plants
Natural Gas Generators
Transmission Lines
Distribution Substations
Plug-in Electric Vehicles
Rooftop Solar
Solar Farms / Power Plants
Wind Farms
Electric Grid Customers
Utility-scale Storage
Distributed Storage
Building A Sustainable Electric System: Model and Policy Components
E/G
DP
= t
ho
usa
nd
Btu
/$ (
in $
20
00
)
1970, First Earth Day
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the US 1949 - 2007
CA Peak Power: Testimony by Goldstein and Rosenfeld (Dec. 1974)
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
United States
California
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $1975 2005 % change
US GDP/capita 16,241 31,442 94%Cal GSP/capita 18,760 33,536 79%
2005 Differences = 5,300kWh/yr = $165/capita
Denmark
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation) (kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards(30 states + Washington, DC)
State Goal
☼ PA: 18%¹ by 2020
☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021
CT: 23% by 2020
MA: 4% by 2009 + 1% annual increase
WI: requirement varies by utility; 10% by 2015 goal
IA: 105 MW
MN: 25% by 2025(Xcel: 30% by 2020)
TX: 5,880 MW by 2015
☼ AZ: 15% by 2025
CA: 20% by 201033% by 2020
☼ *NV: 20% by 2015
ME: 30% by 200010% by 2017 - new RE
State RPS
☼ Minimum solar or customer-sited RE requirement* Increased credit for solar or customer-sited RE¹PA: 8% Tier I / 10% Tier II (includes non-renewables)
HI: 20% by 2020
RI: 16% by 2020
☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
*10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)
☼ DC: 11% by 2022
March 2011
☼ NY: 24% by 2013
MT: 15% by 2015
IL: 25% by 2025
VT: RE meets load growth by 2012
Solar water heating eligible
*WA: 15% by 2020
☼ MD: 9.5% in 2022
☼ NH: 23.8% in 2025
OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)
*VA: 12% by 2022
MO: 11% by 2020
☼ *DE: 20% by 2019
☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops)
☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)
ND: 10% by 2015
8
Why AB 32? Climate Impacts…
California Projected Impacts
75% loss in snow pack
1-2 foot sea level rise
70 more extreme heat days/year
80% more ‘likely ozone’ days
55% more large forest fires
Twice the drought years
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CEC DataBusiness as UsualAB 32 Scenario
% Change from 1990 levels
California Global Warming Solutions Act: ~25% cut in emissions by 2020
An integrated framework that uses sectoral targets and a carbon market (first auction, November 2012
In CA:
- Carbon loading order
- ~60 GW peak, 12 new GW of DG manadate
- EV mandate
California Climate Planning (2006 – 2050)Integration across sectors
• All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020.
Residential New Construction
Energy Efficiency Strategies
California Investor owned Utility (IOU) Investment in Energy Efficiency
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Mill
ions
of
$200
2 pe
r Y
ear
Climate planning
Profits decoupled from sales
Performance Incentives
Market Restructuring
Crisis
Climate law & land-use integrated
2% of 2004 IOU Electric
Revenues
Public Goods Charges
Biomass
Coal
Oil
Complex Power Systems: High Temporal and Spatial Resolution Modeling
http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch
The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012)
Figure 1. Optimization and data framework of the western North American SWITCH model, WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
New Generation & Storage Options in SWITCH
Not in California
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Compressed Air Sodium Sulfur Battery
Stor
age
Figure 6. Base Cost scenario hourly power system dispatch at 54% of 1990 emissions in 2026-2029. This scenario corresponds to a $70/tCO2 carbon price adder. The plot depicts six hours per day, two days per month, and twelve months. Each vertical line divides different simulated days. Optimizations are offset eight hours from Pacific Standard Time (PST) and consequently start at hour 16 of each day. Total generation exceeds load due to distribution, transmission, and storage losses. Hydroelectric generation includes pumped storage when storing and releasing.
The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012)
CARBON COST AND DECARBONIZATION:
Base Cost scenario CO2 emissions relative to 1990 emission levels (A) and yearly power generation by fuel (B) in 2026-2029 as a function of carbon price adder. As shown in panel A, the climate stabilization target of 450 ppm is reached at a carbon price adder of $70/tCO2.
The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012)
WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council
Average generation by fuel within each load area and average transmission flow between load areas in 2026-2029 at 54% of 1990 emissions for the Base Cost scenario. This scenario corresponds to a $70/tCO2 carbon price adder. Transmission lines are modeled along existing transmission paths, but are depicted here as straight lines for clarity. The Rocky Mountains run along the eastern edge of the map, whereas the Desert Southwest is located in the south of the map.
The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012)
Nelson, J. et al., Energy Policy, 43 (2012) 436–447 | http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch
US has twice the German insolation endowment
German total additions more than 5x US size, Germany’s 2011 additions nearly 4x US market
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
24 32 48 67 94 108 149 210 338 473918
1900
53 110 110 139670
951 8431271
1950
3794
7408 7485
PV capacity additions (MW)
Germany cumulative USA cumulative USA annual additions
An
nu
al a
dd
itio
ns
[M
W]
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Ad
dit
ion
[M
W]
70% of US solar market is CA
1/1/
2004
7/1/
2004
1/1/
2005
7/1/
2005
1/1/
2006
7/1/
2006
1/1/
2007
7/1/
2007
1/1/
2008
7/1/
2008
1/1/
2009
7/1/
2009
1/1/
2010
7/1/
2010
0
2
4
6
8
10Incentives for residential systems in CA
residual price for customer
federal ITC
state ITC
after tax state grant
$ 2
01
1 /
W
US Soft-Balance of Systems cost make up nearly all the cost difference
USA 2011 Germany 20110
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0.59
0.110.240.340.150.09
1.73
0.33
0.35
0.28
Soft-BOS cost comparison for residential PV
profit
other costs
permitting fee
PII
marketing and adver-tisement
customer acquisition
system design engineering
installation labor
$ 2
01
1 /
W
$ 0.61
$ 3.60
Critical peak pricing and the demand-side
Average Residential Response to Critical Peak Pricing
kW
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Noon 2:30 7:30 Midnight
CPP Event
CPP with Controllable Thermostat
Control Group
Fixed Incentive with Controllable Thermostat
• Transportation:• Options for reducing GHG emissions from transportation subsectors• Provide snapshots of 80% reduction in transport emissions• Create a spreadsheet tool for developing scenarios and calculating
emissions• Transportation Kaya identity
P T E C Population
California pop.Transport intensity (e.g., VMT/capita)
Energy Intensity (e.g., MJ/mile)
Carbon Intensity (e.g. gCO2-eq/MJ)
Questions:
• How are US clean electricity standards comparable and distinct from those in Europe?
• Identify two examples of energy/environmental policy stability, not including those discussed in this talk
• What does energy equity and access enter the conversation in US and/or California energy policy?
• Critique the assertion that a modified version of the German solar policy can be transferred elsewhere, such as to the US and California, as asserted in this talk.
• Design a Kaya identify, clarify what existing data sets can be used for each term.