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.