Train wrecks California budget?

From the Sacramento Bee

By a bare majority, the state Senate voted Friday to approve initial construction on California's $68 billion high-speed rail project, ending months of intense lobbying and uncertainty in the Legislature.
...
The bill, approved the previous day by the state Assembly, authorizes $5.8 billion to start construction in the Central Valley, including $2.6 billion in rail bond funds and $3.2 billion from the federal government.

Lawmakers tied that money to nearly $2 billion in funding to improve regional rail systems and connect them to high-speed rail. That regional focus was considered necessary to lobby hesitant senators about the project's potential significance to their districts.
…
The vote could become problematic for Brown politically. Opponents of Brown's November ballot initiative to raise taxes already are planning to use the project as an example of spending they say is wasteful. A recent Field Poll suggests the message may resonate, and some Democrats said they feared its effect.

From the New York Times

Opposition cut across party lines. Speaker after speaker noted there was no source of revenue for the train line beyond the initial $8 billion, and that it was being built in rural California, far from where the bulk of the state’s population lived. Several noted the incongruity of embarking on such a major project weeks after passing a budget that included deep cuts in spending on schools and other programs.

“This is a colossal fiscal train wreck for California,” said Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican. “Members, this bill is spending money we simply don’t have here in California.”

From Bloomberg News

If Brown signs the funding bill, the state can start construction on the first 130-mile stretch down California’s Central Valley. The initial route, connecting some of the least- populated parts of the state, has fed opposition to the effort.

The tracks are to run from Merced, about 120 miles south of Sacramento, the capital, to the San Fernando Valley, north of Los Angeles, the state’s biggest city. To connect to that population center with San Francisco, the bill authorizes $2 billion of bond funds to upgrade existing commuter and freight lines to handle high-speed traffic.

California is already the most indebted U.S. state, with $73.2 billion of general-obligation bonds outstanding and the authority to sell another $33.1 billion.

From the San Francisco Chronicle

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, spoke for 15 minutes about the project's strengths and weaknesses before ultimately saying he could not support the details being weighed Friday.

"I think high-speed rail makes sense in California ... but we're not being asked to vote on a vision today, we're being asked to vote on a particular plan," he said, critiquing the cost and placement of the initial stretch of track in the Central Valley and noting that the $3.3 billion in federal funds is about 5 percent of the project's total cost.

"We will be expected to put up 20 times that amount over the course of how many years. ... Regrettably, the only conclusion I can come to today is that this is the wrong plan in the wrong place in the wrong time," Simitian added.

…
But it was the location, demanded by the federal government, of the first phase of construction that proved the most controversial. Critics have derided it as a "train to nowhere," and many farmers in the Central Valley are angry about plans to seize some farmland and homes to make way for the bullet train.

"We are getting an upgraded Amtrak line in the Central Valley for $6 billion," said Simitian. "And oh, by the way, it's in a low ridership area ... a million potential riders as opposed to 28 million in the north and southern ends of the state."

Cartoon by Monte Wolverton, L.A. Daily News

Jerry Brown's white elephant legacy

From the San Jose Mercury News, June 10, 2012, p. A18:

Editorial
Enough. Stop rail fantasy in its tracks

There is a fine line between visionary and delusional. California's high-speed rail project whizzed across that line long ago and now is chugging toward the monorail station at Fantasyland.

The latest end-run tactic by the train's chief engineer, Gov. Jerry Brown, would have California's Legislature suspend its tough environmental laws so the state could put this pet project on the -- pardon the pun -- fast track.

Never mind that every independent analysis of the project has been highly critical of it.

Never mind that the High-Speed Rail Authority's own peer review group said it was terribly flawed.

Never mind that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said even the new, new, new and improved incarnation still is not nearly "strong enough" and relies on "highly speculative" funding sources. For the uninitiated, that is bureaucratese for "not a snowball's chance in hell of finding the money to pay for it."
...
Nope, none of that matters. Casey Jones is at the controls of his legacy project, so reason and fiscal prudence must sit this one out.

We say all this despite having supported high pseed rail when it was on the ballot in 2008. Rail is important to America's future, and we knew the first steps towards any visionary plan face hurdles and may require leaps of faith.

But back then nobody foresaw the economic plunge that still leaves California mired in budget deficits. We lost faith in the original board and its planning and construction team. Then last year, an updated plan with wildly higher costs for a smaller system sent us leaping to the sidetrack. (Oopsie, did we say $45 billion? We meant $98 billion. No, no, wait, $68 billion. Well, you know, around there somewhere. Did we say San Diego and Sacramento would be included in those numbers? Drat, our bad, they aren't.)

How could anyone believe a word of what comes from the High-Speed Rail Authority? As to Brown's legacy, he still has to get us tax plan approved in the fall. If voters perceived high-speed rail as a waste of money, they will be more dubious of taxes.

From the San Jose Mercury News, June 10, 2012, p. A19:

Brown risks legacy on bullet train
By Daniel Borenstein

As Gov. Jerry Brown barrels ahead with high-speed trains, he could find that his quest for a legacy derails the November tax measure he desperately needs to repair the state budget.

For his entire political career, Brown has lived in the shadows of his visionary father, Pat, the governor from 1959-67 who brought us the State Water Project and the master plan for California higher education.

The younger Brown has always been a big thinker in search of his own legacy. But, after his first gubernatorial tenure, from 1975-83, he was best remembered as Gov. Moonbeam, the ideas guy who could never deliver, and for his appointment of Rose Bird to the state Supreme Court, which backfired when voters recalled the chief justice and two of her Brown-appointed colleagues in 1986.

We were told during the 2010 gubernatorial election that Brown, then 72, had politically and personally matured, that he was more down to earth, that he had learned from his intervening years in local government as mayor of Oakland.
…
But he undermines the frugality image by continuing to champion a financially indefensible plan to link the major metropolitan areas of the state with high-speed rail. In his search for his own legacy he risks voter support for his tax measure.

Brown should exercise caution. While he strives to be remembered like his late father for the capital projects he leaves behind, defeat of the tax measure could so badly undermine his financial recovery plans and lead to the gutting of the state's public education system that his legacy might instead resemble that of his former chief of staff, Gray Davis.

Whether voters in November see the connection -- and contradiction -- between Brown's demand for more taxes and his reckless exuberance for spending billions on high-speed rail remains to be seen. A recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters suggests that's a very real risk.
…
When voters four years ago authorized issuing up to $9 billion in bonds for high-speed rail, they made it subject to legislative approval. Now, Brown and Democratic leaders in the Legislature are trying to fast-track approval of nearly $3 billion of those bonds to kick-start the project -- even though they have no idea where most of the money for the system will come from.

It's a risky gambit. The governor is seeking legislative approval for high-speed rail bonds roughly four months before voters cast ballots on his tax measure. Does he really want to anger them just when he needs them the most?

Solving the EV chicken & egg problem

As part of a settlement over the 2001 California energy crisis, NRG Energy promised to spend $100m to build EV charging stations across the state. On Friday a rival charging station company sued to block the settlement.

The settlement itself was fraught with ironies, since many saw NRG as the next most “evil” big business (after Enron) in the whole crisis. The settlement was trumpeted March 23 by Governor Jerry Brown, while the brownouts and blackouts brought the forced retirement (through recall) of his protegé, Gray Davis, who’d been chief of state (and a stabilizing influence) on Brown during his infamous “Governor Moonbeam” days.

According to the GTM coverage of the deal, NRG’s $100m would fund “a statewide infrastructure of at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations.”

There are other aspects of the plan that belong in la-la land, such as the Governor’s vision that (again according to GTM) “California’s personal transportation is to be essentially all-ZEV by 2050.” Fortunately for the state (and the governor), Gov. Moonbeam will be at least 20 years in the ground at that point, with his fanciful promise long forgotten. (For a whole range of reasons ± starting with batteries — electric vehicles will remain a niche product through the first half of this century.)

Still, EVs face a crucial chicken-and-egg problem: they will only get limited adoption without charging stations, and nobody wants to spend big bucks to install charging stations before there is an installed base of EVs. The governor’s settlement of his predecessor’s screw-up allows him to take credit for solving this (very real) “green” problem without spending any taxpayer money (which makes it a rare opportunity indeed). Or, as Michael Peevey, the head of his Public Utilities Commission, noted in the official press release

The settlement will launch a virtuous circle in which ever more Californians will feel comfortable driving EVs, and growing EV sales will in turn attract ever more investment in charging infrastructure to our state.

On Friday, San Francisco-based Ecotality sued the state over the governor’s deal with its competitors. As the Merc reported

Ecotality argues that the agreement "punishes" NRG for price gouging during the energy crisis by allowing it to invest money into its own business.

"Such 'punishment' is equivalent to a motorist settling his speeding citation by simply being required to buy a faster car, subsidized by the public," reads the lawsuit, filed Friday in the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

I loathe crony capitalism as much as anyone, but the Ecotality suit seems to be minimizing the very real risk that NRG is running of owning a fleet of white elephants. (If the suit says California should take its lawsuit settlements in cash rather than business investment, that seems like a more promising argument to make.)

Not everyone share’s Ecotality’s pessimism — or fear — about the impact of NRG’s buildout. As the other Bay Area newspaper, the Chronicle reported:

Jay Friedland, legislative director of an electric car advocacy group, said California's market for charging equipment should grow big enough, fast enough for multiple companies to thrive.

"We think this market is going to expand out pretty rapidly," said Friedland, with Plug In America. "And NRG could be a viable player, just like Ecotality and Coulomb could be."

Ecotality is right that NRG will have a leg up if this turns out to be a good business investment, but it’s lying to claim this will create a “monopoly.” (Electric charging stations are no more monopolistic than gas stations — the national market will support at least 3 competitors.)

Yes California is a desirable market to dominate, but if Ecotality wants to build its own stations, it is free (in a free market) to do so. It just needs to find a deep-pocket source of funding — a problem it had before March 23, and a problem that is solvable by selling itself (earlier, at a low valuation) to a major energy company like Edison, Exelon or PG&E.

Better ways to spend $100 billion

The $100 billion, 22-year projected cost of the proposed California High Speed Rail system should be enough to kill it. But this week, Governor Brown vested his full support — and personal credibility — in this project, hoping to persuade (or overrule) the sentiments of a majority of the state’s voters.

I am a transit fan, second to none. I spent college taking pictures of mass transit systems in Boston, Washington and San Francisco. The one success of my (brief) career as a UPI photo stringer was a picture of the inauguration of the San Diego Trolley that ran on the front page of the San Diego Union. I’ve ridden high speed trains in Japan and Europe, including the Eurostar from Brussels to London. And — unlike most Americans — I’ve even taken cross-country Amtrak trains overnight, both with and without a sleeping car.

Still, $100 billion is a lot of money for one state to cover. That’s assuming that the system could be built for this price, even though major public works projects always run over budget (cf. the “Big Dig”).

Even if an electric train generates less pollution than an internal combustion engine car, is it necessary to put down a $100 billion bet that the system will be economically viable?

Charles Lane of the Washington Post thinks not:

On the merits, high-speed rail would be a questionable investment even if California could afford to build it.

…[B]oosters marvel at bullet trains in Europe and Japan, insisting simplistically that we need them, too.

But the sprawling, decentralized cities of the United States do not make convenient destinations for train travelers. International experience shows that high-speed rail entails expensive debt service and large operating subsidies. This would likely be the case here as well, since, for better or worse, rail must compete with well-established air and car options. Business travel is one ostensible purpose of bullet trains in California, but increasingly people meet via video conference.

For these and other reasons, high-speed rail in the United States would lower carbon emissions and reduce traffic far less cost-effectively than would alternative solutions.

In the past decade, videoconferencing has made huge strides in replacing business travel. No transit system — in fact, nothing short of teleportation — is going to be able to compete with videoconferencing for efficient use of time for short meetings.

Meanwhile, as Lane says, are there budget priorities that could improve the state’s environment far more cost-effectively? The California Solar Initiative is a $3.35 billion cross-subsidy (1/30th the cost of the CHSR) by electricity users that has already brought the installation of more than 1 gigawatt of renewable energy capacity for the state.

Livin' On A Prayer

While I was out of town at a conference, one of the big RE stories in California was the 2010 year end report of the California Solar Initiative. California added 194 MW of solar generating capacity in 2010 (vs. 132 MW the previous year).

As Dana Hull of the Merc explained it (with my commentary inserted inline)

In January 2007, California launched an unprecedented $3.3 billion effort to install 3,000 megawatts of new solar over the next decade and transform the market for solar energy by reducing the cost of solar-generating equipment.
…
The California Solar Initiative's road map calls for 1,750 new megawatts of solar power to be installed on residential and commercial roofs in the state by 2016. [Presumably the other 1.25 GW is utility scale. But does state really require that they be on rooftops rather than (say) a carport in a high school parking lot?]

Through the end of the first quarter of 2011, California had an estimated 924 megawatts of rooftop solar installed at nearly 95,000 sites -- putting it more than halfway toward meeting the solar initiative's goal.

Overall, the report left me puzzled as to the efficacy (or expected outcomes) of the CSI program. If in 4.25 years we’re about halfway to the residential/commercial goals — but incentives are almost entirely depleted — where will the remaining adoption come from?

This called to mind the refrain of the Bon Jovi hit that should be familiar to anyone who’s been to a teen dance in the past 25 years:

Whoa, we’re halfway there
Whoa-oh, livin’ on a prayer
Take my hand, we’ll make it I swear
Whoa-oh, livin’ on a prayer

I don’t be able to predict the future, but I can see two possible scenarios for how the remaining 5+ years of CSI will play out.

One is that the price of the equipment is close enough to grid parity that the additional 800 MW will be installed over the remaining years without resort to subsidies (despite calls for California to institute a feed-in-tariff).

The other possibility is that with subsidies gone, adoption will plummet. In that case, the people hoping for success without money behind it inhaled a few times too many when attending rock concerts.

Green vs. Green

USA Today updates the rest of the USA today on the fight in the Mojave between the supporters of Tortoises for Global Warming™ and the anti-AGW environmentalists.

The headline and the first paragraph say it all:

Solar plans pit green vs. green
By Keith Matheny

Plans to create huge solar energy plants in the deserts of California, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere in the West are pitting one green point of view vs. another.

The There’s really nothing new for those who have followed the controversy for the past two years, but the article does update the score: 9 projects approved and 2 pending (plus 2 approved in Nevada). It also mentions “More than a dozen other utility-scale solar projects are in the permitting pipeline in California, Nevada and Arizona.”

The article does briefly mention the controversy over Ivanpah — as well as its $1.37b in Federal loan guarantees — but not the planned IPO of its intended operator, BrightSource.

I’d commend Matheny (of the Palm Springs Desert Sun) for bringing this to a national audience, but Ivanpah alone has been covered a few dozen times in the New York Times. Still, any publicity on the issue is good for the public policy debate over the serious tradeoffs here between the predicted (although not provable) impacts on AGW or certain endangered species.

What counts as renewable energy?

While working on a paper, I was looking through my notes about eligibility for California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.

The California PUC has an interesting and comprehensive taxonomy of what counts as renewable energy:

• Biomass - any organic material not derived from fossil fuels, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues, waste pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing, and construction wood wastes, landscape and right-of-way tree trimmings, mill residues that result from milling lumber, rangeland maintenance residues, sludge derived from organic matter, and wood and wood waste from timbering operations.
• Biodiesel - Biodiesel is a type of biofuel made by combining animal fat or vegetable oil (such as soybean oil or recycled restaurant grease) with alcohol and can be directly substituted for diesel. (Source: MTC/link)
• Fuel cells using renewable fuels – electricity produced from the creation and breakdown of hydrogen. If the hydrogen source is a renewable fuel, this technology is RPS eligible.
• Digester gas - gas from the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes.
• Geothermal - natural heat from within the earth, captured for production of electric power, space heating, or industrial steam.
• Landfill gas - gas produced by the breakdown of organic matter in a landfill (composed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide), or the technology that uses this gas to produce power.
• Municipal solid waste - solid waste as defined in Public Resources Code Section 40191.
• Ocean wave - an experimental technology that uses ocean waves to produce electricity.
• Ocean thermal – an experimental technology that uses the temperature differences between deep and surface ocean water to produce electricity.
• Tidal current - energy obtained by using the motion of the tides to run water turbines that drive electric generators.
• Solar Photovoltaic - a technology that uses a semiconductor to convert sunlight directly into electricity.
• Small hydroelectric (30 megawatts or less) - a facility employing one or more hydroelectric turbine generators, the sum capacity of which does not exceed 30 megawatts.
• Solar thermal – Use of concentrated sunlight to produce heat that powers an electric generator.
• Wind - energy from wind converted into mechanical energy and then electricity.

Does anyone notice what’s missing? (Hint: it’s only the largest source of renewable energy in California, the US and the world.)

A testament to the power of bureaucracy

While many Californians seek to promote green power, there’s an even strong and more renewable form of power: government bureaucracy.

On behalf of SolarTech, the PV trade association, our SJSU business honors students have completed one study on overcoming permitting obstacles for residential solar in the state, and are about to finish another.

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee shifts the problem from an insider’s concern to a broader political audience in an article entitled “Permit Process Clouds Solar Energy Project.” It notes that politicians have talked about streamlining permitting for utility-scale solar, but not residential solar. This oversight calls into question the goal of a “Million Solar Roofs” by 2018.

A few paragraphs capture the heart of the problem:

Solar providers often complain about having to wait hours in line to submit permits and weeks to get final approval.

The result: Installing rooftop solar panels often takes two to three months from start to finish. In contrast, installing a central air conditioning system, which requires about the same amount of work, can take two weeks, Hahner said.

PV may have some safety issues. The industry clearly needs a technical solution — say UL certification of computer-controlled panel/inverters — that would make connecting a solar panel as foolproof as plugging in a refrigerator or room-sized air conditioner.

Even more crazy is when these regulations apply to solar hot water, which as my colleague Jim Mokri pointed out, is not high technology but 19th century plumbing.

The Bee offers this vignette:

Ed Murray, president of Rancho Cordova-based Aztec Solar Inc., said he ran into a number of hassles trying to get a permit from San Joaquin County for a simple $5,000 solar water heater.

Usually these kinds of permit applications are handled over the counter, but this one turned into a drawn-out process. Murray said he and his employees had to drive to the unincorporated Stockton area three times as part of the review.

"The customer was about to pull out of the project because he was so frustrated that it was taking so long," said Murray, who noted that the permit was approved Thursday.

This is one of the main reasons that I see California’s RE policy as mereley Grand Kabuki by publicity-seeking politicians, rather than a serious attempt to reduce carbon emissions or the use of fossil fuels.

Politicians can’t change the cost of silicon, the efficiency of CIGS, the cost of capital or the scale efficiencies of the big five Chinese manufacturers. They can, however, change regulations — if they really want to. But obviously they don’t want to.

A new class of carpool cheaters

The Merc reports that the Prius and other California hybrid owners are finally losing their carpool cheating stickers. Come July 1, the 85,000 privileged owners of a yellow sticker will no longer be allowed in the carpool lane.

Instead, the $1,500 subsidy to affluent buyers of expensive high-mileage cars will pass to those who buy an EV such as the Nissan Leaf. (Chevy Volt owners need not apply). We are repeating the mistake again, just with another class of privileged few.

Transportation writer Gary Richards found at least one honest Prius owner who recognizes the mistake:

“I am happy to see the carpool access experiment come to a much-deserved end,” said Ted Coopman of Santa Cruz, who never applied for stickers for his 2005 Prius. “While I support inducements for buying hybrids, granting carpool access was a major mistake. Hybrids don't get people off the road, and reducing traffic is the primary reason for carpool lanes.”

If gasoline prices remain high, California is going to need the lanes for actual carpoolers. So lets hope that the state doesn’t fill those lanes with 85,000 single-occupant EV owners.

Cashing out on Mojave solar bonanza

BrightSource Energy — the Oakland-based builder and operator of California solar thermal plants — has filed for a $250 million IPO. The S-1 doesn’t say how many of the 94.3 million shares it plans to sell

According to its S-1, the company was losing $40+ million/year but last year losses rose to $71.6 million with cumulative net losses of $177.3 million. The company did end the year with $37.8 million in cash equivalents on hand. But the S-1 says “executing on our pipeline and expanding our business requires significant additional capital.”

The S-1 said that it‘s signed 14 contracts with PG&E and/or SCE to deliver 2.6 GW of solar capacity. The first of these is the Ivanpah project, with a gross capacity of 392 MW on 3,600 acres near Baker in the Mojave Desert, on the I-15 between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

The S-1 says this is the first of the company’s projects, with construction begun in October 2010, the first phase due in 2013 and the remainder in 2014. The project received a $1.6b loan guaranteed by DOE, as well as $300 m in equity from NRG Solar, $168m from Google and $130m from BrighSource.

Veteran solar scribe Ucilia Wang sees this as a multi-million dollar bet on Ivanpah — and that seems like a good way to interpret it. The success of Ivanpah (and Coalinga Solar-to-Steam) are essential to getting financing for the remaining projects.

Some have questioned whether solar thermal (such as the BrightSource solar tower) can be cost competitive with PV in the long run. That’s not the real question: can BrightSource execute on its current plans (without internal or external delays) and deliver the contracted energy reliably?

Assuming there are no loopholes in the contracts, the Power Purchase Agreements are (by design) bankable revenue sources — representing the desperation of California utilities with the RPS gun to their head, buying from (thus far) the only gigawatt-scale game in town. Still, it’s hard to see how a successful IPO for BrightSource helps any of the PV companies, or for that matter those of the solar thermal operators who lag BrightSource by several years.

California PV: at what price?

With Gov. Brown’s assent, the California legislature has formalized the 33% in 2020 Renewable Portfolio Standard imposed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Even without a feed-in tariff, the state is marching towards having more RE usage than the rest of the US or Western Europe.

A quick glance at the California Solar Initiative data — back when the CSI incentives were relevant — shows that residential solar is relatively inconsequential in the state’s RE energy footprint. The real action is on large commercial and utility scale installations.

Last year saw a huge rush of utility scale plants being started in the Mojave before before federal subsidies expired.

However, energy writer Richard Nemec wonders whether these plants ever made economic sense. Earlier this week he wrote in the Los Angeles Daily News:

nine projects were given the green light, collectively totaling enough megawatts to equal about two San Onofre nuclear plants. Three months into 2011, however, two of the largest projects slated for the Southern California desert regions have been sold, utility contracts canceled and their futures put in doubt.

To date, three of the major projects are under construction, but a lot of that work is preliminary, awaiting more complete financial backing.

In addition to problems completing projects, there is also the price that the utilities (and thus businesses and consumers) will be paying for their power:

The state regulatory commission's consumer unit report concluded that approved solar contracts for the state's major private-sector utilities have collectively been about $100 million overpriced. This sort of largess does no one any good.

One reason for paying inflated prices is the RPS standard. Another is the expiring federal subsidies which caused firms to rush deals to regulatory approval before key issues were resolved.

This is perhaps the Achilles heel of utility scale: the small-numbers irrationality. When you have nine deals, it takes only a few bad decisions to have one-third or half of the projects collapse.

For residential and small commercial, some owners may behave irrationally, but in the long run we’ll expect buyers to act in their own self-interest: if the systems make sense, people will buy them and if they don’t, they won’t. (Yes, some consumers will pay a green premium to save the planet, but most probably won’t.)

The CPUC report looked at 184 projects — you would think enough to see a pattern in the proposals, and perhaps for the industry to figure out what’s feasible and not feasible. But I think the combination of RPS and federal subsidy deadlines induced an irrationality into the process.

The legislature (and the new governor) has made it clear that it wants more RE power used in the state. It remains to be seen whether they will pay attention to the inherent flaws in their mandated approach — rushing adoption ahead of grid parity — or will just ignore the wasted millions (if not billions) because it doesn’t show up as a tax that they can be blamed for.

All biofuels not created equal

Efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy are proceeding on two parallel tracks. Solar, wind and other technologies are being deployed to generate grid-connected electricity (instead of coal or natural gas) while biofuels are being developed to replace petroleum-based transportation fuels.

In addition to concerns about (net) greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have also attracted support from those who want to reduce U.S. imports of foreign oil.

Biofuels are thus one of the major research areas of the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A 2006 NREL brochure summarizes the various alternatives.

Two major types of biofuels are being developed — alcohol and biodiesel — to replace petroleum-based gasoline and diesel respectively. (For safety reasons, efforts to test jet fuel replacements have so far used blends of regular jet fuel and biodiesel.)

While next-generation alcohol fuels are under development, the current generation fuels are mainly ethanol. The most widely used (and most controversial) biofuel in the US is corn-based ethanol, which is sold today at many gas stations as a 10% (soon 15%) blend with conventional gasoline.

Ethanol is a grain-based alcohol that has numerous disadvantages when compared to gasoline. It has lower heat content, is miscible with water and highly corrosive. However, for more than a decade, some “FlexFuel” cars have been designed to run with (and resist corrosion from) E85, i.e. 85% ethanol. My 2000 Ford pickup says it is compatible with E85, although I’ve never seen it for sale here in California.

Corn-based ethanol also poses economic challenges. After the U.S., the second largest producer of ethanol is Brazil, which refines its ethanol from sugar cane. Brazil’s ethanol industry is pushing for trade sanctions against the U.S. over our net 99¢ subsidy for use of domestic over imported ethanol. Because ethanol consumes one-third to 40% of American corn, some also blame it for the recent increase in food prices.

Cellulosic ethanol offers a way to overcome these food vs. fuel problems, because it uses crop residue, grasses and other organic material that do not require prime farmland. However, these feedstocks pose greater technological problems in processing to produce fermentable sugars. To overcome these challenges, cellulosic ethanol is attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in government and industry investment to develop commercial-scale bioprocessing facilities.

Broadly, there are also two categories of feedstocks for biodiesel. One category includes the existing oilseed crops — such as canola, jatropha or palm oil — which were used in some of the earliest bio-jet fuel experiments two years ago. Indigenous to the Sonoran Desert, varieties of jatropha have become a popular fuelstock for growing in arid areas such as the U.S. Southwest, Africa or India.

The second category of biodiesels are algal biofuels. Microalgae can be grown in non-arable land — or even saline or brackish water — and produce a higher concentration of oil than more the complex oilseed plants. They also can be genetically engineered (or selected) for characteristics best suited for fuel production.

Both forms of biodiesel still require manufacturing process improvements necessary to build commercial refineries of scale and efficiency comparable to decades-old petroleum-based technologies. The microalgae approach also requires additional research into developing (or screening) and then cultivating the most suitable strains.

In California, San Diego has become the state’s (if not the nation’s) hub for algae-based biofuels, with two major firms as well as the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology, a large university-industry research center headquartered at UCSD. Venture investors, the Federal government, and even oil companies like ExxonMobil have bet heavily on the future prospects for algal biofuels.

Sunny and dark side of deregulation

10 years ago, the California energy crisis came to fruition. Blackouts and shortages rocked the state, made us a mockery of the country and brought down a governor.

Since that time, it’s been tough to find a balanced appraisal of this event. Leftists blamed evil corporations, rightists blame inept government while accounts that consider both perspectives are few and far between.

Economist Seth Blumsack of Penn State offers the rare exception, writing in December’s issue of IEEE Spectrum and posted to the public website this month. (The website comments are also helpful.)

Against the government, there was only partial deregulation which never engendered real competition. Against business, a few companies (notably Enron) were able to game the system for their own ill-gotten gains.

As Blumsack points out, electricty markets are not (and perhaps never will be) fully competitive. In this regard, the last mile resembles wireline telephone companies and other “natural monopolies.” Meanwhile, all energy markets are plagued by demand that is highly inelastic in the short run. (If gas prices double, over time I can buy a smaller car or move 15 miles closer to work, but I can’t do it tomorrow morning.)

Overall, the results are mixed. The partial liberalization has increased efficiency. On the other hand, increased pressures for efficiency have changed the energy grid from a cooperative effort to a zero-sum battle.

Blumsack contends that deregulation means higher cost of capital and thus higher project costs. It’s also possible that deregulated developers have more incentives to cut costs while regulated utilities — like a government entity — will quite freely spend money not their own.

Finally he points to the role of markets in promoting green energy. Markets can be used to buy anything, and most American states are using them to procure geen energy.

A green way to fight EVs

The general public and the media hype machine seem to assume EVs are good for the planet, even though that assumption is dubious at best.

Still, I was unaware of environmentalists passing policies to reduce the use of EVs here in California — until now.

A Purdue study (forthcoming in Energy Policy reported by the LA Times) notes that the state’s aggressively tiered electricity rates — plus our electricity prices — make the state one of the most expensive (i.e. least desirable) places for a consumer to charge an EV, perhaps 35% above the national average.

Philosophically similar to a progressive income tax, California’s tiered electricity rates charge more per kWH for big users than small users. It’s designed to encourage energy efficiency (but also also sock it to the rich.)

A PHEV would increase a homeowner’s electricity consumption by 60%, thus pushing even the most efficient homeowner into a higher tier.

The study from Purdue’s Energy Center pointed to another problem: California’s average electricity price is among the highest in the country: 4.4¢ per kWH vs 8¢ for a low cost state like Indiana.

In short, the economics of the Chevy Volt don’t work, according to the Purdue press release:

The researchers determined the plug-in hybrid would be less economical than the Toyota Prius, a hybrid that does not charge its battery through a plug, or the Chevrolet Cobalt, which uses only an internal combustion engine. When oil prices are high, the Prius would be the most economical, with the advantage going to the Cobalt when oil prices are low.

Tyner said to make the Volt more economical than either the Prius or the Cobalt, oil prices would have to rise to between $171 and $254 per barrel, depending on which electricity pricing system is being used. That's because the Volt has a higher purchase price and will cost more in electricity than gasoline over the life of the vehicle.

Even with $7,500 in Federal subsidies, the numbers just don’t pencil out:

"People who view the Volt as green will pay $10,000 more over the lifetime of the car because it's green," Tyner said. "Most consumers will look at the numbers and won't pay that."

Perhaps this explains the dismal sales of the Volt (and its competitor the Nissan Leaf).

Of course, this is a job for the controversial SmartMeter™!! With time of day metering, excessive energy consumption at night (which isn’t going to be air conditioners) could be charged at the base rate rather than the peak rate.

There’s no evidence of a CPUC ratemaking proceedings yet, but I’d bet money that our local EV company and its allies will request starting one soon.

Some observations on global solar adoption

I just spent two days at a workshop for solar equipment producers sponsored by Festo AG. (I was invited to support its efforts to build a Festo-sponsored open innovation community.) Several of the speakers offered great statistics, history and other facts about the development of the industry.

Below are a few “stylized facts” about where PV is being produced and used.

1. Solar Price is Relative

Substitute costs are the key driver of solar adoption. If energy is cheap, no one wants expensive RE. If energy is expensive, RE may not seem all that expensive. European adoption is high due to high fossil fuel prices, while US has historically had cheap energy. However, with our high insolation and high (Tier 4 or Tier 5) utility bills California is almost break-even without subsidies today, Hawaii too. Germany is a long way off, China will be decades away at 5c/kWH.

2. Roadmaps Help

The PC industry grew for 40+ years with a a technology roadmap based on Moore's Law. There is evidence that PV cost cuts also provided a predictable roadmap. According to consultant Ruurd Boomsma, the prices generally fell 5-6% per annum, much more slowly than LCD prices over the past decade. (However, prices fell more dramatically in 2009 and it’s not clear if that’s the new normal or a one-time shock.)

3. US is Inherently Messy

It is clear that the US policy regime is more fragmented, confused and contradictory than either Germany or China. Although Germany has Federalism, the RE policy is mainly at the national level, not the staaten. In most other countries, the states/ provinces are relatively weak and the RE policy is made at the national level. Also, RE policies (eg. for residential solar) are better understood in countries with national policies than in the US (where the major policies are at the state level).

4. Jobs Follow the Entire Value Chain

There's been a lot of discussion (and hand-wringing) on the huge shift of PV production to China and elsewhere in Asia. However, the major shift has been for cells. Modules are more expensive to ship and to inventory, and may continue to be produced near (or closer to) actual use. Installer jobs will also remain in the developed economies and perhaps the balance of system too.

5. California isn’t Serious About Green Jobs

California has spent lots of money on RE subsidies and is proud to lead the nation in such subsidies — just as it led the nation in regulating tailpipe emissions for years. However, the state has been trying for 20 years to destroy the local manufacturing base through regulation and taxation. If not for the dot-com boom, this would have been pretty obvious a decade ago, but the lagging recovery (and 12% unemployment is making them visible now.)

Mayors, legislators and governors claim to want green jobs, but their bureaucracies tie up new manufacturing efforts with red tape through opaque discretionary approval processes. (I heard a few choice examples Tuesday). It’s no coincidence that the silicon has left “Silicon Valley: that Santa Clara-based Intel is building factories in Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico but has closed its last factory in Silicon Valley. SV alumni and VCs start companies here because it’s convenient, but the manufacturing is going elsewhere.

Five years from now, I predict there will be no large-scale solar manufacturing in California. The PV manufacturing growth for California and the Southwest will be in Nevada (no income tax), Arizona and New Mexico.

Tortoises for Global Warming (tm)

I’ve previously written about the perverse goals of some environmentalists and politicians to block RE development protect wildlife. or, worse yet, to save views in Cape Cod or the Mojave Desert. Some of the same activists who want government to force through spending and approval on RE facilities cringe when there’s a tradeoff between reduced CO2 emissions and other environmental goals.

The NYT’s green blogger, environmentalist Todd Woody, does an unusually good job of capturing both sides of this dilemma in his blog posting and article today about how more than 4 gigawatts of newly-authorized capacity (mostly solar thermal) will likely transform the Mojave Desert — despite repeated objections by the Sierra Club and other environmentalists.

The flashpoint of the Mojave controversy is the California Desert Tortoise. As Woody writes:

The protected desert tortoise has become the totemic animal for environmentalists fighting to ensure that the huge solar farms don’t eliminate essential habitat for the long-lived reptile and other wildlife, like the bighorn sheep and flat-tailed horned lizard.

The tortoise has been in decline for decades, and the rampant development of the desert – from casinos and strip malls to subdivisions and off road recreational vehicle areas – took their toll long before construction began late last month on the Ivanpah solar power plant, the first large-scale solar thermal project to be break ground in the United States in 20 years.

However, as Woody also notes, the new plants will provide resources, funding and data to better understand the tortoise and how to preserve it. (In other words, much as building a shopping center sometimes funds archaeological digs that otherwise would not have happened.)

The article suggests that the controversy is far from over. In the short run, it may get stronger as Gov. Brown appoints one or more wildlife environmentalists to replace Schwarzenegger appointees who consi entire favor RE over wildlife. In the long run, the actual evidence gathered by the newly-funded scientists should resolve the debate one way or the other.

An expensive way to not save the planet

In Monday’s Washington Post, Robert Samuelson wrote about administration plans to make a $10.5 billion down payment on a $200 billion cost of constructing 13 high speed rail corridors (including $19 billion for California).

A few choice quotes:

What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.
…
We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impractical. …Trip origins and destinations are too dispersed to support most rail service.

Only in places with greater population densities, such as Europe and Asia, is high-speed rail potentially attractive. Even there, most of the existing high-speed trains don't earn "enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs," the Congressional Research Service report said. The major exceptions seem to be the Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon lines.

President Obama calls high-speed rail essential "infrastructure" when it's actually old-fashioned "pork barrel." The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don't exist and ignore costs that do.

Samuelson predicts economic disaster for California if it spends $43 billion to build a high-speed rail system it can’t afford to operate. Or rather he predicts that the current economic disaster will get worse.

America's RE problem: consistency, not dollars

Over the weekend, the NY Times ran an article summarizing the great building boom of utility-scale solar projects for the Mojave desert that has been approved in the past 60 days.

It minimized the difficulties the developers have faced getting federal, state and local approvals, and instead focused on the gun to their head: the looming expiration of federal subsidies.

As reporter Todd Woody wrote:

The Ivanpah plant is the first of nine multibillion-dollar solar farms in California and Arizona that are expected to begin construction before the end of the year as developers race to qualify for tens of billions of dollars in federal grants and loan guarantees that are about to expire. The new plants will generate nearly 4,000 megawatts of electricity if built — enough to power three million homes.

But this first wave may very well be the last for a long time, according to industry executives. Without continued government incentives that vastly reduce the risks to investors, solar companies planning another dozen or so plants say they may not be able to raise enough capital to proceed.

“I think we’re going to see a burst of projects over the next two months and then you’re going to hear the sounds of silence for quite a while,” said David Crane, chief executive of NRG Energy, on Wednesday after he announced that his company would invest $300 million in the Ivanpah plant.
…
With both Democrats and Republicans promising to rein in the federal budget, it is unclear whether lawmakers will extend the programs in any form. “That could stall a number of projects and even lead to the failure of some,” said Ted Sullivan, an analyst with Lux Research, a consulting firm in New York.

Reading this in my Sunday Merc was eerie, because it exactly echoed what I read Saturday night about the beginning and end of the first wave of Mojave solar thermal development during the 1980s, where the nine plants of the Solar Electricity Generating Systems developed by Luz International once accounted for 95% of the world’s solar electricity generation capacity.

Writing in a technical report for Sandia National Laboratories, Luz’s former business development VP, Michael Lotker, summarized how the company was repeatedly forced to plan its projects in between the institution of subsidies (such as RE tax credits) and their expiration. Often this meant that a 18 month project had to be completed in ten months — and in one case seven months — as the company was squeezed between knowing that the credit was available and the deadline for generating electricity before the credit expired.

Knowing that Luz had a gun to its head, investors, suppliers and even the unions exploited the company’s desperation knowing that it had to agree to almost any terms to make the project happen. As a result, the company ran out of money, which helped discourage any future company from taking the risks that it did.

If the government is paying for something — whether directly via procurement contracts or indirectly via tax subsidies — it has a strong interest in helping its suppliers (in this case of renewable energy) improve their efficiency. More efficiency is a win-win — either the government can get more of it supplied or it can get the same quantity at a lower price. So with the unpredictable, irregular or erratic policy — such as “temporary” credits renewed one year at a time — pushes up costs both for the firms and the society that is subsidizing those firms.

Both Woody’s story and the earlier report by Lotker highlight an important point for US renewable energy policy: the most important thing (as with any policy that impacts business) is consistency and predictability.

End to solar thermal? Not so fast!

September and October have been great months for utility-scale solar thermal projects in California, as the state (with cooperation from the Feds) approved six projects with 2.8 gigawatts of capacity in the Mojave desert. Five of these are proven trough systems, while the sixth plans to use a Sterling engine.

However, Michael Kanellos and Brett Prior of GTM speculate it’s the beginning of the end for solar thermal. Their argument is sound in principle, but I wonder if their timing is premature.

Most of the advantages of the solar trough systems are also its disadvantages: it's low tech, decades-old proven technology that works well at scale. For years, the world’s largest solar facility — and California’s entire utility scale solar capacity — consisted of the nine SEGS sites totaling 354 MW in Eastern Mojave. The GTM argument is that the main solar thermal systems — both trough and tower — are about to lose to PV on cost per watt and LCOE, and that the price of PV technology will continue to improve more rapidly than that for thermal.

I think the latter is certainly true — PV costs have been coming down for decades, while many of the thermal parts are mature and proven. Also, the moving parts on heating water and running turbines guarantee significant operating costs that are not seen by PV, which are essentially semiconductors covered by glass windows that need to be washed.

Has it crossed over yet? I think the crossover is coming, but the fact that all six utility scale systems are thermal rather than PV suggests it’s still a ways off — or at least that PV manufacturers can’t ramp up production capacity quickly enough to generate gigawatt-capacity plants.

While the costs are attractive, PV clearly has more risk in the short term than the proven thermal technology. That (as they argue) other utility scale systems plan to use PV suggests the crossover is coming, but I don’t think we’re there yet.

The other thing about the argument is that it says little about the economic viability of thermal systems either operating or under construction. If utilities have signed a PPA with the RPS gun to their head, they still need the contracted capacity at the agreed-upon price.

In fact, if both Jerry Brown gets (re) elected (even odds) and Prop. 23 fails (it’s outspent 3:1), then utilities are going to need whatever capacity they can get to meet the RPS standard of 33% by 2020. Keeping the 33% requirement will give an extra 2-5 years of life to the solar thermal market (beyond whatever its natural lifespan is) as buyers wait for PV manufacturers to ramp up capacity to meet a global — not just California — demand for renewable energy.

Renewable energy is a capital-intensive commodity business. At some point solar thermal companies will have a hard time competing for the bulk of the market, but for now they can — in best Monty Python fashion — note that “I’m not dead [yet].”

Feed-in tariffs: an idea whose time still has not come

A group of renewable energy activists have been pushing for the US to emulate Germany by instituting a feed-in-tariff. The idea is that the more generous payment to RE generators would increase the installation of RE generating capacity.

The California Public Utilities Commission has been flirting with idea for years, with trial efforts at a smaller scale, and hosting a symposium endorsing the idea last year. The CPUC reportedly endorsed a FiT for systems from 1-20 MW in size, although the F-phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in its recent news.

Is this such a good idea?

A comparatively balanced article by veteran Eric Wesoff of Greentech Media earlier this year discussed the pros and cons of this approach. One important requirement — as with any government manipulation of the market — is predictability:

Gary Kremen, solar entrepreneur and founder of Clean Power Finance, had this to say on the subject: "FiTs are great if they are a long-term commitment on the part of government and utilities. Off-and-on FITs make planning and the mandatory required financing hard, if not impossible."

Those promoting feed-in tariffs tout the undeniable effectiveness of FiT in promoting solar adoption in Germany. However, as Wesoff notes, that comes at a price:

Germany is experiencing a bit of a feed-in tariff backlash as their citizenry reacts to FiT dollars going to Chinese, rather than German, solar module manufacturers. FiTs can also be construed as a tax -- and that's political poison in the U.S.

In other words, subsidies for inefficient power producers are politically palatable if it creates domestic jobs, but not if it ships domestic funds overseas.

The big disaster of FiT is that it doesn’t set prices right, because it uses government fiat rather than the market to match supply and demands. The €15+ billion fiasco in Spain is Exhibit A. Because they are expensive, even some progressive consumer groups oppose their use.

For more than a year, the state has been toying with a modified FiT that it now calls a renewable auction mechanism. The Aug. 24 CPUC decision to create this mechanism seems to be a compromise that pleases everyone and no one.

In particular, it’s design to correct the most egregious errors of the government-set pricing. As Nikki Chandler reported:

Some governments have used fixed-price feed-in tariffs to incentivize renewable energy development. One point of difficulty has been getting the fixed pricing right. If the price is set too low, it does not stimulate the desired level of market activity. If the price is set too high, ratepayers pay unnecessary costs, suppliers throughout the value chain are not encouraged to reduce prices, and the program can lose political support. In contrast, the CPUC program uses competition to establish a price that is both sufficient for project development and protective of ratepayers.

The plan seems to please one group (Interstate Renewable Energy Council) lobbying for a FiT and anger another (the FiT Coalition).

If the supporters are right, the RAM will increase solar adoption in California without paying too much (and also not violating federal restrictions on cross-subsidies issued in July by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.) If RAM opponents (or hard-core FiT supporters) are right, the market-oriented tariff won’t be enough to stimulate a supply of renewable power. I guess (as in Spain and Germany), time will tell.