California Energy Roadmap Targets Outlines Activities to Support Electrified Transportation; Sufficient Charging Stations to Support 1M Plug-ins by 2020
22 September 2010
|
|
| California inter-agency roadmap. Click to download pdf version. |
Four California state agencies and the independent power grid operator have released a new plan and vision for California’s energy future in advance of the Air Resources Board consideration of a first-in-the-nation rule requiring that a third of California electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Among the targets and activities identified in the roadmap is developing enough charging stations at home, work, and in public areas to accommodate one million electric and hybrid vehicles.
The joint authors of California’s Clean Energy Future are the Air Resources Board (ARB), California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO).
The document is intended to guide the next decade of coordinated strategic planning in the state, bringing cleaner sources of electricity online, and supporting reinvigorated efforts to improve energy efficiency, developing new transmission infrastructure and ensuring the stability of the electrical grid.
The document calls for an integrated approach to energy issues that have, in the past, not always been addressed in a fully coordinated fashion. In contrast, a consensus among the agencies drives the current effort in which a coordinated statewide approach is key in balancing climate change mitigation, renewable power generation and the use of advanced technologies with grid reliability and reduced costs to consumers.
A roadmap charts policy priorities, goals and milestones and an implementation plan contains the details of more than 50 newly aligned activities between the five organizations.
The plan covers issues such as job training and retraining for the new clean energy economy, and planning for new electricity generation, developing enhanced transmission and new distribution requirements. It also looks at strategic and infrastructure opportunities that will accommodate the expected influx of plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars, and investment in research and development for new technologies related to generation and distribution.
As we plan for the future, it is important to consider the nexus between transportation and electricity. Electrified transportation holds the promise of both reducing smog-forming and greenhouse gas emissions and is an important component of California’s long-term sustainability goals, including those related to reducing petroleum consumption. However as the numbers of vehicles operating on electric-drive increase, we also must ensure that the electricity system is prepared both from an operational and environmental perspective. Because of this, the Roadmap includes several activities that promote alternative fuel transportation. It will be important for the results of these activities to be reflected in demand forecasts and resource planning activities in the future.
—California Clean Energy Future Implementation Plan
Activities in the implementation plan to support plug in vehicles include:
- Alternative Fuel-Vehicle Rulemaking;
- Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (AB 118 provides the Energy Commission with up to $120 million per year to develop and deploy alternative and renewable fuels and advanced transportation technologies to help achieve the state’s climate change policies); and
- Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation (earlier post).
Alternative Fuel-Vehicle Rulemaking. One goal of an earlier CPUC rulemaking is to ready the electric infrastructure for light-duty passenger battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PEVs). Decisions on the rulemaking are intended to prepare the electric infrastructure for the early market of PEVs (2010-2015). The rulemaking will lay a policy foundation to support the CCEF goal to support 1,000,000 PEVs by 2020.
According to the CPUC Policy and Planning Division 2009 white paper Light-duty vehicle electrification: Potential barriers and opportunities, “while there is much the CPUC and the electricity utilities can do to prepare for and encourage the widespread use of PEVs, market and battery technical barriers may ultimately influence the sustainability of PEV commercialization. Market and technical barriers to sustained PEV commercialization include current battery and PEV cost, the storage to energy ratio of PEV batteries, automaker PEV production capacity, PEV battery production capacity, and the volatile cost of gasoline.”
Should the market for PEVs fail to meet the CCEF goal, infrastructure investments required to support vehicle charging under consideration in the CPUC rulemaking may result in stranded infrastructure costs. Alternatively, there is a considerable cost volatility and air quality risk to reliance on petroleum as the primary source of light-duty vehicle fuel.
—California Clean Energy Future Implementation Plan
Other 2020 targets for the plan include:
- Reductions of electricity (13,200 to 18,000 gigawatt-hours) and natural gas use (800 million therms) by 2020.
- 5,000 megawatts of installed renewable distributed generation statewide at the right locations on the power grid to support reliability and provide economic value.
- The development of at least one large-scale carbon capture and storage generating facility in California.
- 1,000 MW of additional storage capacity to be brought onto the system.
Resources
How much do you want to bet that ever-brainless and
now financially bankrupt California, which continues to spend taxpayers dollars as though they actually had some, will proceed (as aways) their own arrogant way
and approve charging stations before there is any widespread agreement 1) on how they should operate and 2) the actual electrical connectors. Judging by California's past efforts at ineffectual air quality
improvements via impractical and costly auto emission
requirements, we can assume they will screw this effort up in a like manner. When will people learn that non-democratic governemtns like California are motivated by
show biz principles, not reality. Why would anyone think that a body that can so completely ruin their state's financial ledgers, has the ability to do anything? Governments are incompetent and not answerable to anyone. The public needs to control the laws they live under, not some representatives who do as they please once elected. You'd think that the example of Obama disregarding all his past promises and
passing laws that would NEVER be voted for by the paying public would lead the public to understand just how completely our representative "democracy" has failed to carry out their will. What a braindead country. No wonder people like Obama get elected.
Posted by: Biker | 22 September 2010 at 11:10 AM
You have to make plans for the future or you are stuck. The recession reduced tax revenues and Arnold refused to rewrite Prop 13, so the state runs deficits. Republicans seem to like running deficits and then claiming no new taxes and no tax hikes.
Posted by: SJC | 22 September 2010 at 11:19 AM
Interesting proposal to increase the renewable portion of the electric demand to 33%. Cali's total electric demand is 306TWh annually. About 11% is large NW hydro, another 10% is other renewable (geotherm, solar, wind, landfill gas). They will likely import more NW hydro to meet this new goal - not exactly energy independence or real sustainable since export states like Washington actually import coal-fired electricity from Wyoming to meet demand!
Better for Cali to approve several new nuclear plants and convert half the remaining coal burners to NG. Build out the solar & wind projects and PIONEER a major CHP incentive program for light industry and residences.
If Cali set a goal of converting just 10% residences to CHP using tax incentives like those for solar - they would reduce the demand for overall grid energy and increase electricity produced in-State.
California NEEDS to lead the way in CHP. They are already being shown up by the Platinum LEED BofA Tower in NYC. CHP is at the leading edge of the energy revolution!
Posted by: Reel$$ | 22 September 2010 at 11:39 AM
I don't think L.A. feels "shown up" by N.Y.C. New York has too many of their own problems that are uniquely theirs. The 1/3 renewable will not happen, because we live in a time of no new taxes and control of government by corporate interests.
Posted by: SJC | 22 September 2010 at 12:39 PM
It's not NYC that has led the way. Strangely it is BofA and their architect firm Cook & Fox. But NYC has set a goal of 800MW of installed CHP by 2030 - not very ambitious really.
http://construction.com/CE/articles/0803edit-5.asp
California could alter their energy problems AND tackle the economic situation by promoting RPU manufacture and installation in the State. Bloom is already working on downscaling their Bloom Box SOFC for residences. More work needs to be done to bring this technology to commercial use - sooner.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 22 September 2010 at 01:24 PM
Reel,
Your proposal sounds very attractive, though have a few questions;
1. CHP residential: Do you mean small single family home generators/heating, or primarily with commericial and multi-family dwellings? I assume you are referring to Northern Cali, as Southern Cali has very little heating requirement, and would simply generate electricity at relatively low efficiency (compared to a combined cycle plant).
2. When you say "build out wind and soar projects, do you mean continue at the same pace, or simply stop adding new solar and wind projects?
Posted by: Will S | 22 September 2010 at 03:02 PM
Will,
I am proposing CHP for all Cali provided chiller cooling can be applied efficiently. The NYC tower uses overnight electric to make ice for cooling. This model requires a (micro)turbine generating constant load to be efficient. Clearly residential CHP should be CCHP for California where cooling is just as important as heating. Excess heat is best used for heat, hot water AND cooling.
The opportunities are greater for light industry and multi-family dwellings at the moment since micro-turbine and SOFC are expensive. Bloom's Box at Google is producing electricity and hot water. They claim a cost benefit of 20% annually over grid power.
Continue to develop wind & solar - especially desert concentrators and salt-based storage for heat and electricity. This could double Cali's alternative electric to 20% total demand.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 22 September 2010 at 10:33 PM
Reel,
I can support your proposal, as it fits my overall thinking;
- increase energy efficiency of all appliances/HVAC
- incorporate widespread DSM (load-shaping, not simple load shedding) via a smartgrids
- increase energy storage capacity
- Bump up solar/wind/nuclear/gas/geothermal, squeeze out coal
- increase HVDC interconnections/capacity
Posted by: Will S | 23 September 2010 at 06:10 AM
And don't forget insulating & sealing buildings. (and stricter building codes)
Posted by: danm | 23 September 2010 at 12:24 PM
WB: Yes, GWB bankrupted USA and his follower is bankrupting CA.
Drill baby drill and it will all fade away. This may be 330 AD in Rome.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 September 2010 at 03:25 PM
It we could actually drill our way to energy independence it might be worth listening to. It will be interesting to note how many switch to EVs and would never go back to gasoline. If I were producing oil, I would be watching that carefully.
Posted by: SJC | 24 September 2010 at 08:45 AM
Actually California's largest high tech firms all reported quarterly income 5-10% greater than year ago. Plenty of money, business and opportunity in Cali. AND it's warm and sunny year around.
It's like heaven on Earth!
Posted by: Reel$$ | 24 September 2010 at 09:06 AM