It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

Sunrise Powerlink Gets Boost from CPUC President -- Approval is Next

SDG&E got a boost on its efforts to build the Sunrise Powerlink, a $1.9 billion power line proposed to connect San Diego and Imperial counties.

Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, offered a third alternative for his four fellow commissioners to consider when they discuss the proposal on December 18, 2008.

President Peevey's proposal would allow SDG&E to build the Powerlink without any condition that the line be required to deliver green energy to San Diego.

The proposal points to a southern route that avoids Anza-Borrego Desert State Parkand communities such as Julian and Santa Ysabel.  Does he have the votes to get this done?  Sources say yes. 

I have said before, infrastructure is in short supply -- and our continued grwoth -- like it or not -- demands that we build the necessary infrastructure that we will need to keep the lights on.  And for those who say we don't need it -- not only do we need transmission, we need to add more generation inside of California too.  Failure to do these necessary upgrades and construction will cause us to fail on the effort (and now law and executive order) to get to a greener future.

CATO Institute Calls President-Elect Obama's "Going Green" Plan a "wealth transfer"

The much respected CATO Institute has issued a report on the Obama energy plan to go green for the United States, and the report says the only "green" in the plan will be part of a wealth transfer.

As if that were not enough, the report also says that a federal renewable portfolio standard is unlikely to deliver much green power.  The paper dubbed President-elect Barack Obama’s plan to create a federal green power standard of 10 percent in 2012 and 25 percent in 2025 a “wealth transfer.”

Read the report:  "A Federal Renewable Electricity Requirement" www.cato.org

Obama-Nation: Historic Win -- Now What on Energy?

Historic.  That's the word that most of the pundits used to describe it.  While I have my reservations about some of the issues and how the President Elect may deal with them, I agree that we have an exciting situation in the United States.  Biut closer to my heart is energy.  And what can we expect from the president elect and the vice president elect?

Lets review what they said during the campaign and you decide.  As for me -- I see HUGE hurdles, given the economy.  Many challanges remain in California and as to how we meld with the campaign promises and the realities that come -- well, lets wait and see...

What Does Barack Obama Say About Energy?

www.barackobama.com

ü      Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

ü      Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

ü      Invest in a Clean Energy Future

ü      Support Next Generation Biofuels

ü      Set A

merica on Path to Oil Independence

ü      Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

ü      Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Senator Joe Biden

The energy challenge take sacrifice and is a moral crusade. (Dec 2007)

FactCheck: Oil did not jump $18/bbl due to Iran Resolution. (Dec 2007)

Supports cap-and-trade for greenhouse gases. (Nov 2007)

Provide for emergency fuel assistance immediately. (Oct 2007)

Make every automobile sold be a flex-fuel automobile. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)

Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)

Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)

Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)

CPUC's Trick or Treat on Sunrise

On all Hollows Eve, the CPUC offered a treat to SDG&E:  competing proposed decisions on thier proposed Sunrise Powerlink.  The trick:  the two proposed decisions either partly or fully oppose the project.

The first of the proposed decisions, authored by an administrative law judge, denies the application for the 150-mile Sunrise Powerlink altogether, saying the project could significantly raise electric rates and do extensive environmental damage if built, and “is not needed to meet California's current renewable (energy) requirements.”

The second proposed decision, written by Commissioner Grueneich, approves the project but denies SDG&E its preferred northern route.  Grueneich argues that Powerlink is needed to meet state goals in reducing greenhouse gases, but the utility should use a southern route through

San Diego

County

that avoids

Anza-Borrego

Desert

State Park

and all tribal lands.

The full commission is not expected to vote on the two proposed decisions until December 4 at the earliest.  The commission will hear comments from interested parties and oral arguments at a public hearing in

San Francisco

on November 7.

So, What do Sarah and Joe Say About Energy?

While I will make no predictions on who ultimately wins the presidential election, I have been tracking where the candidates stand on energy matters.  Followin is where the vice presidential candidates stand on the matter.  And by the way, remember that the VP debate is tonight.  Here's what you can look out for on energy:

Governor Sarah Palin

Produce more of our own oil & gas, for national security. (Sep 2008)

Gas pipeline:history's largest private-sector infrastructure. (Sep 2008)

More pipelines; more nukes; more coal; more alternatives. (Sep 2008)

Claimed major triumph: $500 million subsidy for gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)

Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)

Resource rebate: suspend AK 8-cent fuel tax for one year. (Aug 2008)

Gasline Inducement Act: 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)

Commercialize Alaska's North Slope natural gas. (Aug 2008)

Appointed an Alaska oil and gas commissioner. (Aug 2008)

To win, GOP must push energy independence. (Aug 2008)

Agrees with Obama on more Alaska oil & gas production. (Aug 2008)

Windfall oil profits tax prevents investment. (Aug 2008)

Lift moratorium on offshore drilling. (Jul 2008)

Convinced McCain to drill offshore; not yet on drilling ANWR. (Jul 2008)

Exxon-Mobil should pay $507 million for Exxon Valdez spill. (Jul 2008)

Unlock ANWR; we're ready, willing and able to contribute. (Jun 2008)

Energy relief plan: $100 per person monthly, for oil & gas. (May 2008)

Bush is right: drill ANWR & develop our own supplies. (Apr 2008)

Fully fund for the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office. (Feb 2008)

$250M for proven alternative energy, including wind & hydro. (Jan 2008)

Gas pipelines are approved if they meet Alaska's needs. (Jan 2008)

National energy policy not an either/or proposition. (Nov 2007)

Fund cellulosic biofuel research in Farm Bill. (Oct 2007)

Submitted legislation to build natural AGIA gas pipeline. (Mar 2007)

Stranded Gas Development Act no longer applies. (Nov 2006)

Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)

Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Nov 2006)

Pursue gasline plan that is best for ALL Alaskans. (Nov 2006)

Met with producers and employee groups for pipeline deal. (Oct 2006)

Firm start date as part of gasline incentive offer. (Oct 2006)

Opposes natural gas reserves tax--it's not earned income yet. (Oct 2006)

Analyze potential costs associated with climate change. (Oct 2006)

Senator Joe Biden

The energy challenge take sacrifice and is a moral crusade. (Dec 2007)

FactCheck: Oil did not jump $18/bbl due to Iran Resolution. (Dec 2007)

Supports cap-and-trade for greenhouse gases. (Nov 2007)

Provide for emergency fuel assistance immediately. (Oct 2007)

Make every automobile sold be a flex-fuel automobile. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)

Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)

Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)

Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)

I will give the edge to the Right Honorable Governor Palin on this issue.  What do you think?

McCain vs. Obama on Energy – Who Wins this Battle?

So, we have heard a lot from both of the presidential campaigns on energy this week, but have either of the candidates delivered knockout punches on the issue?  In my opinion, neither candidate has done that – but for now I would score the fight in favor of McCain, only because he is not loading up his plan with more spending.  Take a look for yourself, and make your decision.

 

What Does John McCain Say About Energy?

www.johnmccain.com

ü      Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

ü      Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector

ü      Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy

ü      Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation

ü      Promoting Energy Efficiency

ü      Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil

ü      Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax

 

What Does Barack Obama Say About Energy?

www.barackobama.com

ü      Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

ü      Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

ü      Invest in a Clean Energy Future

ü      Support Next Generation Biofuels

ü      Set America on Path to Oil Independence

ü      Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

ü      Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

CAISO CEO Says Grid Needs 6 New Major Transmission Lines in Addition to Sunrise Powerlink and Tehachepi Transmission Line

Yakout Mansour, CAISO CEO, delivered keynote addresses this past week at the California Manufacturers and Technology Association’s Annual Energy Conference and at the California Council for the Environmental and Economic Balance conference.  In his nearly identical remarks at both conferences (Wednesday and Thursday, respectively), Mr. Mansour made some interesting pronouncements.  Following are the highlights:

 

·       California’s Transmission and Generation Siting process must be streamlined as it poses incredible challenges (particularly to goals for renewable portfolio standard— RPS, generation integration and greenhouse gas reduction – as well as providing necessary generation for California’s continued energy consumption growth)

·       Current

California

nameplate capacity is critical in meeting the 20% RPS under current law, achieving 33% RPS will be even more difficult

·         Current CAISO interconnection cue is 110K MWs – of this 70K MWs are renewable-this is generation proposals that are under consideration and must be studied by the CAISO to determine how and where they would connect to the grid

·         CAISO expects that 85% of this generation will not be built

·        CAISO study concludes that in addition to the Tehachepi and

Sunrise

transmission lines, 6 additional major transmission lines will be needed to help CA meet RPS, GHG and growth requirements.

Great News! The Fires in the Last few Weeks Have Slowed Global Warming

Is it possible that the smoke that we choked on for the past few weeks and the homes and lives lost were for a greater cause?  The fires actually will slow global warming?

 

According to scientists, the Arctic may cool for weeks or months at a time as smoke from northern wildfires drifts into the region, according to researchers at the

University

of

Colorado

and the

U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The cooling effect was observed above the snow-free tundra and to a greater extent over the darker, ice-free ocean, according to the study which appears in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

 

The study claims that smoke in the atmosphere temporarily reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.  Robert Stone, an atmospheric scientist at the

University

of

Colorado

and lead author of the study, also said in a statement that the “transitory effect could partly offset some of the warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.”

Warming temperatures are extending wildfire seasons, raising the threat to communities and to forest ecosystems, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report last year.  Wildfires are likely to occur more often as warming increases the risk of drought and reduces the amount of winter snow that accumulates at higher elevations.

California

current wildfires forced 10,000 people to abandon their homes in the foothills of the

Sierra Nevada

earlier this month, the largest fire evacuation in the state this year. Wildfires are likely to increase in

California

, the West, Southwest and the Southeast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a report last week.

 

More Proof?

 

Researchers analyzed the short-term impact of wildfires that swept through

Alaska

and western

Canada

in 2004.  That summer, fires burned a record 10,000 square miles of

Alaska

's interior and another 12,000 square miles in western

Canada

.

 

Researchers as far away as Greenland and the Svalbard archipelago north of Norway also observed that smoke was blocking more solar radiation during the 2004 summer, suggesting that the effect North American wildfires was far-reaching.  Smoke from the same fires was observed as far south as the

Gulf of Mexico

.

So, should we encourage wildfires from time to time?  Are the preservationists right to not allow better harvesting of forests?  Have we heard anything about this from Al Gore?  Too many questions…  

Here We Go Again, A Stressed Out Grid

For the past three summers, we have had the same story.  Early in the year, the government agencies will state: "not to worry, the grid looks fine for this summer and it appears we will have plenty of energy to keep the lights on."  But as we have experienced in the past two consecutive summers, this one is no different.

For starters, this summer's fire season started a bit earlier than normal.  At one point in the last couple of weeks we were up to 1700 fires burning across California.  One national television network called their headline "California On Fire" -- indeed.  While we can be thankful for the brave men and women that have battled back these fires and have knocked the numbner down to around 500 fires currently burning, the problem is that 3 of those fires are currently threatening transmission lines in northern and central California.

Now add heat to the equation.  California this week is experiencing our second heatwave of the summer.  Stronger than the last one earlier in the year, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)is predicting that consumtion may near the records we saw in 2006 (heaviest consumption of electricity is predicted for Wednesday and Thursday, given the anticipated high temperatures in major parts of the state).  The only potential good news is that the heatwave will likely be concentrated to California and not affect the rest of the West -- if it does, we are in trouble.

What happens if the heatwave does hit other Western states?  Well, that means that the power they would normally ship to California will likely be consumed at home, so the power for the region will be constrained and in short supply.  Ugly, right?

One more thing... The aging infrastructure.  Will our older power plants hold up to a third summer in a row of heatwaves, fires and transmission issues?  I know that the good folks that work at those places will do what they did the last two summers in a row and work their hardest to make sure that the facilities run and produce power.  But will the aging steel cooperate?

Once again, 2008 is what I call a "Summer of Hope."  Hope the fires don't disrupt transmission, hope the heatwaves don't engulf the whole west and that they don't last too long, and hope that the againg infrastructure holds up.  Wouldn't it be nice to say, "good thing we are building the necessary infrastructure to deal with this problem?"

Well, I "hope" that legislators and the regulators are paying attention. 

A New Renewable Plan for California?

There is a rumor that the Schwarzenegger Administration is in the process of preparing an executive order and legislative package to expand the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS -- this is the requirment that in state utilities procure a specific amount of generation from renewable sources) from 20% to 33% by 2020.  There may be three options to get to 33%: 1) a legal mandate, 2) a goal set in law (thorough legislation) or 3) set by the Air Resources Board in the AB 32 Scoping Plan.  There will be three elements in implementing this policy.  There will be an executive order (EO) with two primary elements on transmission and siting.  There will be a third element which will be a legislative package of bills.

The devil is always in the details, but if the move to 33% will truly streamline the siting process, which is the only reason to do this, then I would say that this is not only necessary, but it would become the only way that the state might actually achieve this goal.  Of course, no investment will be attracted if contracts are not offered to attract that business.  I do hope everyone is mindful of that. 

While I understand tha this is still under development, sources close to the proces indicated that this has moved from a conceptual draft and is closer to being official in the coming weeks.  Stay tuned!