Negative Pricing in California (surplus solar at work)

“The solar excess contributes to electricity rates in California that are the highest in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has higher electricity rates, a function of its isolation and need to import fuels for power generation.”

Has California’s enthusiasm for solar power gone too far? That question is being asked as the state is curtailing large amounts of solar generation and paying other states to take the Golden State’s solar excess.

The Los Angeles Times (November 24, 2024) reported:

In the last 12 months, California’s solar farms have curtailed production of more than 3 million megawatt hours of solar energy, either on the orders of the state’s grid operator or because prices had plummeted because of the glut, according to an analysis of data by The Times.

Data from the state’s grid operator, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), shows that curtailments of solar generation, because the conventional market for power in the state was less than was being generated and electric storage capacity was full, have doubled compared to 2021.

In addition, the newspaper reported, electric supply is so much greater than demand in some periods that power prices have gone negative. Gary Ackerman, the former executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, said solar generators are paying brokers to take the power. The brokers, in turn, are selling it out of state, and reaping a substantial profit. “This is all being underwritten by California ratepayers,” Ackerman said.

The CAISO warned of the issue of solar curtailments in 2017, writing, “As more renewables come onto the system, oversupply during the middle of the day, when the sun is brightest, is happening more frequently, and curtailing of solar resources is becoming a common practice.”

The system operator noted, “Curtailments can occur in three ways: economic curtailment, when the market finds a home for low-priced or negative-priced energy; self-scheduled cuts, which reduce generation from self-scheduled bids; and exceptional dispatch, when the ISO orders generators to turn down output.”

In 2017, New York Times Los Angeles correspondent Ivan Penn reported in the LA Times, “On 14 days during March, Arizona utilities got a gift from California: free solar power.

Well, actually better than free. California produced so much solar power on those days that it paid Arizona to take excess electricity its residents weren’t using to avoid overloading its own power lines. It happened on eight days in January and nine in February as well. All told, those transactions helped save Arizona electricity customers millions of dollars this year, though grid operators declined to say exactly how much. And California also has paid other states to take power.

The problem has grown substantially since 2017. Last month’s LA Times article reported, “Arizona’s largest public utility reaped $69 million in savings last year by buying from the market California created to get rid of its excess solar power. The utility returned that money to its customers as a credit on their bills.”

Analysis a year ago by the University of California, Berkeley’s Ecoblock program concluded:

From 2017 to 2022, we have seen a 546% increase in solar and wind curtailment with only a 41% increase in wholesale solar and wind energy generation. This is an alarming growth rate. If we only supply one-third of our energy needs with renewable energy, how much curtailment will we see as we get closer to 100% renewable energy? Can we even get to 100% renewable energy with this growth rate of curtailment?

The graphic illustration of California’s solar problem is seen in the famous “duck curve” that first appeared in 2013 and has grown over the years.

Source: EIA

The Rate Problem

The solar excess contributes to electricity rates in California that are the highest in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has higher electricity rates, a function of its isolation and need to import fuels for power generation. California electricity rates are about double the national average.

According to Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission, the average electric rate ($/kWh) at the state’s two largest investor-owned electric companies, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, have increased 51% in the last three years. Smaller San Diego Gas and Electric, has seen a 20% rate increase (but are the highest, at $0.383, versus $0.367 for PG&E, and $0.332 for Edison).

Nevertheless, California solar generation continues to expand. Dimension Energy, a California-based independent community solar energy developer, recently completed construction of a 44-MW solar project in Southern California Edison’s service territory, Inyokern in Kern County. According to POWER magazine, it is the “largest third-party-owned community solar project in the U.S.”

——–

A key to dealing with the temporal vagaries of renewable energy is electricity storage. California utilities have invested heavily in battery electric storage systems, primarily the same lithium ion technology used in electric vehicles.

Li-ion technology has its own share of limitations. The batteries are expensive, scalability is tricky, and there are safety issues, demonstrated by Li-ion battery fires such as the June conflagration in San Diego. There are promising thermal storage technologies but they have yet to gain much traction.

It’s “green” business-as-usual in California. But it is sustainable?

The post Negative Pricing in California (surplus solar at work) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/YEL7T1O

January 8, 2025 at 01:08AM

Grid battery cost issue storm looms in Massachusetts

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Massachusetts just passed a law requiring the big utilities to buy a whopping 1,500 MW of batteries by this July. It should cost several billion dollars requiring immediate rate increases so it will be getting lots of attention. Net zero storage finally hitting the fan.

The total battery buy is an incredible 5,000 MW with most of that bought in the next few years so the rate increases will keep coming. The law is a study in vagueness so there will be a lot of confusion along the way.

The complex issues involved have been nicely outlined in two articles by Laurie Belsito at the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. The first, written before the Bill passed, is titled “Proposed Battery Law Costs Billions and Does Nothing”. See it here:

https://www.massfiscal.org/op-ed-the-actual-costs-legislature-climate-bill

This article focuses on the cost of the entire 5,000 MW, saying this:

“The amount of batteries is somewhat unclear. The Bill specifies that 5,000 Megawatts (MW) of batteries be bought but this is the discharge capacity, that is how fast the batteries can be emptied. The storage capacity is what counts and that is measured in Megawatt-hours (MWh). Specifying MW is like buying juice based on how fast it pours not how much the bottle holds.

The Bill does include a range of storage capacities which bounds the cost somewhat. Most of the batteries are what is called mid-duration which means they can provide full discharge for from four to 10 hours. Almost all grid scale battery systems these days are four hour duration so for simplicity we will start by assuming the whole 5,000 MW buy is four hour batteries.

This gives 20,000 MWh of storage. Battery systems today run around $500,000 per MWh. That gives a total cost of $10,000,000,000 or ten billion dollars which equals roughly 17% of the current state budget. If 10 hour batteries are purchased the cost jumps to $25,000,000,000 or twenty-five billion dollars. The Bill actually calls for a good bit of longer duration batteries as well which makes the cost even higher.”

Ten billion, twenty-five billion, maybe more who knows? That is seriously vague and I doubt the Legislators who voted for this madness had any idea of these numbers.

There is a lot more in the article that is well worth reading.

The second Belsito article analyzes the looming complexities of the utilities buying 1,500 MW in a rush. It is titled “Amidst Glaring Unknowns in New Energy Law, Rate Increases Definite” and is here:

https://www.massfiscal.org/amidst_glaring_unknowns_in_new_energy_law_rate_increases_definite

Here are three excerpts to give the flavor of the analysis. There is a lot more in the article.

1. “This is sure to be a very complex process with little guidance from the new law. The big question we have is who will wind up paying for something we previously found won’t give us much bang for our buck, where many billions of dollars will buy you a few more hours of energy at best. Big rate increases are certain but it’s unclear which ratepayers will be taking the hit and how these price increases will be distributed among them.”

2. “One point to be considered is that the law says this huge battery storage buy shall be made jointly by “every distribution company” in the State. The law is unclear on whether this includes municipal power authorities, which are not technically companies. If it does exclude them, then municipal power customers might be off the hook when it comes to paying the billions.

Assuming it is just the investor-owned utilities that most of us use, the big question is then how will the cost be divided among them? The new law is silent here. They might do it on the basis of customer equity, such as total retail sales. Or they might do it on the basis of their relative need for batteries in which case customers of one utility could see much bigger rate increases than another utility’s customers.

Another complexity is that these rate increases all have to be applied for and approved by the state Department of Public Utilities. This can be a long-drawn-out process but the bill itself puts the state under a significant deadline. Rushing to spend billions is never good policy, but it is now the law that our elected state representatives and governor approved just a week after most of them secured reelection, while the senate gave its approval days before. Presumably while the purchase process is done jointly the rate increases will be done on individual utility cases, especially if the rate increases differ a lot.

There is also a chicken and egg dilemma. The rate increases should be based on the battery costs, but the utilities cannot finalize the purchases to establish costs without the rate increases. Perhaps they will make the purchase contracts contingent upon getting the necessary rate increases. Among the uncertainty, the one thing that can be assured is that your bills will go up.”

3. “These staggering costs and who will pay them will start to come into focus with the rate increase applications that the power companies will have to file. The affected ratepayers should demand an explanation as there is no apparent use for all these thousands of extremely large, expensive and dangerous batteries that will be dotting the landscape in our communities.”

I can hardly wait for these rate increase requests to hit. People will finally see the costly absurdity of battery backup for renewables. I and others at the Net Zero Reality Coalition have been writing about this for several years. See https://www.cfact.org/netzerorealitycoalition/. Until now the issue has been academic but this is a looming reality.

The astronomical cost of backup batteries is an issue that extends far beyond Massachusetts. We should all watch this issue storm closely.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/OfaAKVt

January 8, 2025 at 12:03AM

UN Climate Rapporteur: “Climate change has created impossible conditions for one of the most resilient people in the world”

According to UN Special Rapporteur on climate change Elisa Morgera, “Some states are not acting in good faith” on climate change.

World’s climate fight needs fundamental reform, UN expert says: ‘Some states are not acting in good faith’

Special rapporteur Elisa Morgera criticizes ‘ineffective’ status quo and says focus must be on ‘deep, systemic inequalities’

Nina Lakhani, climate justice reporterTue 7 Jan 2025 22.00 AEDT

Special rapporteur Elisa Morgera criticizes ‘ineffective’ status quo and says focus must be on ‘deep, systemic inequalities’

The international effort to avert climate catastrophe has become mired by misinformation and bad faith actors, and must be fundamentally reformed, according to a leading UN climate expert.

…

“The current climate regime was built in a way, maybe unconsciously, that locked in an ineffective approach that is blind to the disproportionate harms of climate change – and increasingly climate solutions – and the disproportionate benefits that the current situation is accruing to very few states and very few individuals,” said Morgera, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

“We can observe that some states are not acting in good faith in very clear ways, which is the basis of any international regime. There is widespread disregard for the rule of international law, and also a very clear pushback on the science, and shrinking of civil spaces at all levels. Basically, the truth is out of the conversation. That is the problem – there is no space at Cop for the truth,” said Morgera.

“Fundamental reform is possible, if there is a willingness by the states and the secretariat, but it’s hard to see that at the moment.”

…

She said: “The dominating assumption in the current process assumes that mass behavioral change is the solution, that this is as much a consumer issue as a production issue – which is a misrepresentation of the causes and the solutions. We’re still not looking at deep, systemic inequalities as the root causes, while also entrenching inequities and worsening negative human rights impacts of climate change – and climate solutions.”

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2025/jan/07/climate-change-reform-elisa-morgera

I think Elisa probably wants to help, but she’s going to have to practice her communication skills to get any traction.

When I first tried to read this article last night, very little of what Elisa said made sense. So I decided to try to clarify that last paragraph “The dominating assumption…” by translating it into Welsh :-

Mae’r dybiaeth amlycaf yn y broses bresennol yn rhagdybio mai newid ymddygiad torfol yw’r ateb, bod hwn yn gymaint o broblem defnyddwyr â mater cynhyrchu – sef camliwio’r achosion a’r atebion. Nid ydym yn dal i edrych ar anghydraddoldebau systemig dwfn fel yr achosion sylfaenol, tra hefyd yn ymwreiddio anghydraddoldebau ac yn gwaethygu effeithiau negyddol newid hinsawdd ar hawliau dynol – ac atebion hinsawdd.

Then I translated it back to English :-

The most obvious assumption in the current process assumes that mass behavior change is the answer, that this is as much a consumer problem as a production issue – which is to misrepresent the causes and the solutions. We are still not looking at deep systemic inequalities as the root causes, while also entrenching inequalities and exacerbating the negative impacts of climate change on human rights – and climate solutions.

The double translated paragraph is definitely more readable – now we know the correct translation for the UN Gobbledegook word “dominating” is “most obvious”.

If you are wondering why I tried Welsh, I’m not picking on the Welsh. I lived in Wales once, fond memories – people were kind to the Aussie. I tried a few other languages but Welsh worked the best. Welsh is clearly a language which goes straight to the heart of the matter being discussed.

The whole article is worth a read, a bit like doing a cryptic crossword puzzle – though I recommend tackling it after a good sleep and a strong coffee. Remember, if any of the academic UN word salad gets too challenging, you can always try translating it into Welsh.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/eM9VNFT

January 7, 2025 at 08:06PM

President Trump announces big wind rollback at press conference

Wind turbines are intermittent, inefficient, expensive, highly subsidized and murder on the environment. President Trump understands. WATCH NOW

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/VQvN6Dq

January 7, 2025 at 06:41PM