DesertBlog

More on RETI’s CREZy Idea

In the debate we had a couple of days ago, Carl Zichella stated that he believes that we need to do as much of everything (energy efficiency, distributed point of use renewables, and large scale remote renewables) as we can to combat global warming. This is certainly a respectable position. He also believes that we won’t reach our renewable energy goals through distributed PV alone. And this is the official position of the RETI report, which states: “Abandoning transmission planning for renewables in favor of much heavier reliance on energy efficiency and distributed generation greatly increases the risk of not being able to meet state policy goals by 2020.”

But what if we actually define what those goals are? Fortunately, the RETI process does state a specific goal: 68,000 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/yr) of renewable energy should be enough to meet the new state requirement of 33% renewable energy by 2020. Can we meet that goal without the Big Solar and Big Wind projects RETI contemplates?

Bill Powers thinks we can, and his comment letter on the RETI Phase 1b Draft Report explains why. Relying on RETI’s own assumptions, Bill points out that 10,000 GWh/yr will come from geothermal, so solar and wind need to account for the remaining 58,000. According to Bill, and to numbers buried deep in the RETI report itself, a 58,000 GWh/yr capacity of thin-film photovoltaics, placed near utility substations, would cost no more than the same capacity of concentrating solar thermal projects. More importantly, it would require no transmission. Bill estimates the cost of transmission required under the RETI process at around $20 billion. Clearly, there is no justification for adding a cost of $20 billion in order to achieve the same goal.

Put another way, if we took that $20 billion for transmission and instead spent it on environmentally preferable “building-integrated” photovoltaics, we could get halfway to the goal of 58,000 GWh/yr. (Here’s how that’s figured: 58,000 GWh/yr works out to about 27,500 megawatts. $20 billion would fund between 14,000 and 18,000 megawatts, so this investment could get us more than half way to the goal.)

Of course, 27,500 is still a lot of megawatts and far more than California is currently installing. Is it feasible to install that capacity of photovoltaics by 2020, even if this technology is cost-competitive? The case of Germany shows that it is indeed feasible. Currently Germany is on pace to install 2,000 MW each year by 2012. (As of September 2008, the country was on pace to install 1,300 MW by the end of the year.) In sunnier California, given the new solar financing plans allowed under AB 811 and the new federal tax breaks for utilities that were passed in October, and if we can get a proper Feed-In Tariff like the one Germany has, we can surely achieve 2500 MW installed per year, which would get us to 27,500 megawatts by 2020. 

But Bill goes even further, and states that RETI does not give enough credit to California’s new energy efficiency requirements. (And it’s worth pointing out here that a Feed-In Tariff would help in both energy efficiency and conservation — you’re much more likely to turn down your AC a bit if you know you can sell those saved electrons for a profit.) If these energy efficiency efforts are fully taken into account, then that original goal of 68,000 GWh/yr for renewables can be reduced to 40,000 GWh/yr. And according to RETI’s own analysis assuming the lower thin film pricing, more than 40,000 GWh/yr can be achieved using only distributed PV (which RETI calls “In-State Non-CREZ Resources”). Table 5-13 (Phase 1b Final Report, page 5-29  — you’ll need to scroll down to find it on page 151 of this large PDF file) shows that 46,142 GWh/yr of Non-CREZ resources would become available under this reduced thin-film pricing. (The text accompanying the chart states that this is a “test case” only and has practical limitations based on concerns utilities have about the effects this level of PV installation will have on their substations. Yet this concern hasn’t stopped the utilities from lauching into their own ambitious PV projects, each totalling hundreds of megawatts. And if substation infrastructure is indeed a problem, perhaps some of that $20 billion transmission line savings could be spent to upgrade it.)

Clearly, if RETI took these strong numbers for PV and energy efficiency fully into account, then the process would have to conclude that the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZs) are indeed not competitive, and that no new transmission is necessary (and therefore the RETI process itself is unnecessary).  But all of these numbers are buried deep in the report and are viewed as speculative (even though three of California’s public utilities are already moving ahead with PV projects amounting to hundreds of megawatts each, all based on these lower prices). Instead, RETI’s main or “base case” economic analysis (the one covered in the document’s executive summary, and often the only section the public, reporters, and public officials will read), sticks with much higher and outdated costs for “tracking crystalline” PV. With these figures, the report allows for only a little over 2,000 GWh/yr of distributed PV. Thus, RETI assures both the necessity of large scale renewables and long transmission lines, along with its own continued existence.

Now, perhaps we need to get even more than 33% of our energy from renewables by 2020. Maybe that number should be 50% or 100% — we’re not necessarily in a position to disagree. And DPC has never ruled out eventually having some level of concentrating solar power in some areas of the desert, especially disturbed ones such as agricultural sites. But after all, California’s 33% goal is one of the strongest in the nation. If we can hit that goal with urban renewables, why would we even think about scraping the desert and building expensive transmission lines (that do nothing in themselves to combat global warming) to reach it?

We agree that we need a Marshall Plan or an Apollo Program to tackle global warming. The desert needs it as much as any other ecosystem or landscape. But that program needs to be directed toward the least impactful, least expensive technology that meets the program goal. It should also benefit all citizens, not just utilities and large energy developers. At this point, the best energy-generating technology for achieving these goals is thin film PV. Are PV and energy efficiency getting Apollo Program levels of attention and funding? Not so far. Energy has been viewed as important, but more like dessert than the main course. Most solar incentives have done little to dispel the common perception that PV is “too expensive” and “too inefficient,” and have even limited the size of the intallations that can be installed.  (And RETI itself is certainly doing nothing to dispel these perceptions.) So let’s have those Apollo Program levels of incentives and funding for both PV and energy efficiency. Only after these have been fully explored and implemented should we think about turning to large-scale renewables in remote locations.