Energy Center Navigation

Monday, October 27, 2014

PA solar growth slow in 2014

Pennsylvania is abuzz with talk of solar. On the tail of the 2014 Pittsburgh Solar Tour; great newspaper clips on Pennsylvania companies on the fast road to solar-battery Shangri-La; more public institutions, towns, and schools looking at solar as a way to save precious budget dollars; and the nation on track to install more solar than coal capacity in 2014, you may assume that the solar boom is alive and well here in the Keystone state. Unfortunately, the numbers paint a different picture.

Pennsylvania installed over 16MW of new solar capacity in 2013. In 2014, we will be lucky to break 5MW. The graph below charts new solar energy system registrations for January 1 – October 1 for both 2013 and 2014. All systems charted are located in Pennsylvania, and eligible to produce solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) for portfolio standard compliance.


One silver lining: Although Pennsylvania may only install one third of the total solar capacity in 2014 that was installed in 2013, the residential and small commercial installers continue to build projects, spurred by solar cost declines and electricity price increases. 294 of the 295 new installations registered so far in 2014 were from residential and small commercial systems.

How do we make sure Pennsylvania gets its share of the solar boom and the jobs that go with it? We need good state policies to provide the right market signals to Pennsylvania's consumers and our solar industries. As we draw closer to the November elections, you'll hear the word "jobs" more than you can count. Any leader serious about Pennsylvania jobs should be serious about Pennsylvania solar. See our Clean Energy Wins Policy Road Map for Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency and learn how we can gain ground for clean solar energy.

Evan Endres is project manager for the PennFuture Energy Center and is based in Pittsburgh. He tweets @ER_Endres. 

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Time to focus on the real issues

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to head up to State College, Pa. to speak to an environmental resource management class about current legal and policy issues surrounding climate change.

In preparing for this talk, I tried to step back from the specifics of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed carbon rule for existing power plants and look at the broader discussion surrounding the various elements we're having.

The EPA's proposal suggests we can meet our targets with a combination of cost-effective measures collectively known as the "best system of emission reductions," including the following:
  • Heat Rate Improvement
  • Redispatch of Coal To Natural Gas Combined Cycle
  • Preserving Nuclear Generation
  • Increasing Renewable Energy
  • Improving Energy Efficiency
While none of these measures are mandatory under the EPA proposal, they are a cost-effective means of meeting the EPA targets. Because of this, we are hopeful that Pennsylvania will consider them carefully as it establishes standards of performance. (In an earlier blog post, I went through these measures step by step, showing that Pennsylvania has already made a lot of progress. In fact, just keeping our existing programs in place will get us more than halfway to our goal.)

When you take a step back from the specifics, you will surely notice that, even though our goals are achievable, the EPA proposal is generating a good deal of opposition and controversy. You may also notice that much of the controversy seems to be focused on "issues" that are not as significant while ignoring important questions that we should be asking. The proposal to redispatch coal generation for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) is an example.

Since redispatch implies that existing coal plants will lower production or shut down, it is not surprising that the PA Coal Alliance and others in the industry are very vocal about this issue. The reality of the situation, however, is that enough coal-fired power plants have already retired for economic reasons that we are on track to exceed the EPA's goals with no further plant retirements. With no real issue there, much of the argument turns to manufactured issues.  

For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has recommended to EPA that things such as improvements in household energy efficiency should only be creditable if they are "coupled with the replacement or retirement of an existing source or facility" -- a move which would massively undercut otherwise creditable measures that will more than pay for themselves. EPA isn't going to agree with DEP but if forced to adopt this interpretation, it would need to revise its proposal. This would mean some combination of replacing energy efficiency with less cost-effective measures and/or revising statewide targets to make sure the plan continues to be achievable.

That is a bad idea, but not by itself a manufactured issue. It becomes one when DEP representatives say publicly that the EPA plan will result in 70 percent of our 2012 coal-fired power plants shutting down. This isn't the EPA's plan. In fact, this would only be true if EPA accepted DEP's own plan and ignored all other creditable measures, then compounded the problem by leaving the targets exactly as they are. Even if EPA wanted to do such a thing, the requirements of the Clean Air Act would prevent it. Old coal plants are having an increasingly hard time competing in an open market with cheaper sources of energy, so it won't surprise anyone if additional plants happen to retire in the coming decades, but we shouldn't confuse this with the results of EPA's plan. 

While DEP has been spending time calculating unrealistic scenarios and debating what would happen if they came true, the real problem with relying on natural gas isn't getting the attention it deserves: That problem is methane leakage. Since methane is up to 86 times as harmful as other forms of carbon pollution in the first 20 years after its release, it is essential that leakage be controlled if we hope to see climate benefits as we move from coal generation to gas. While some improvements have been made in recent years, we are still a long way from having a detailed accounting of our actual leakage rates and a comprehensive program that will control that leakage.

DEP recently held a listening session on its plan. A number of people at that session echoed this very point. If DEP is listening, it's time for them to act and get serious about methane leakage.

Rob Altenburg is senior energy analyst for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. He tweets @RobAltenburg.

2014 Pittsburgh Solar Tour video preview

Enjoy this 2014 Pittsburgh Solar Tour video preview!

PennFuture is proud to present the Pittsburgh Solar Tour for the fourth year in a row and are happy to be joined by our presenting partner, SUNWPA. If you live in Pittsburgh or the western Pennsylvania region, there's probably a stop near you.

The 2014 Pittsburgh Solar Tour is sponsored by Levin Furniture, the first furniture company in the country to install solar. Stop by their solar-powered Monroeville store, it's on the tour.

The self-guided tour includes six featured stops that have something for everyone. This includes green features, fantastic award-winning architecture, electric-powered libraries and "Solar 101" presentations by SUNWPA, as well as a presentation on future solar plans, at the Millvale Library. 

There's also a listing of 15 additional solar open house locations spanning western Pennsylvania. We're featuring solar as far south as Cannonsburg and solar-powered farms north of the city in Sarver, Pa.

Use the Google Map and the Tour Guidebook on the website to plan your tour!

 
2014 Pittsburgh Solar Tour Preview from Evan Endres on Vimeo.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Are you ready for winter weather?

Now that cooler temperatures are here, it's worth thinking about the upcoming heating season.

According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Short-Term Energy and Winter Fuels Outlook, temperatures in the Northeast are expected to be 11 percent warmer than last winter. After facing the polar vortex in January and unusually cold temperatures lasting well into March, it won't be surprising if this year isn't as rough.

Consumers may benefit from fewer heating degree days, but demand is only half of the problem. Supply problems can easily send prices soaring. During the peak in demand last January, our grid operator had about 20 percent of its generation offline—way more than its average of 7 percent. While natural gas pipeline capacity issues were a factor, problems were widespread, with most of the outages related to coal plants and diesel generators.

What should we expect on our energy bills?

Natural gas customers may use 10 percent less fuel, and there appears to be plenty of supply, but limited pipeline capacity and generally rising prices may limit savings. If the forecasts are accurate, the EIA expects customers to see a 5 percent reduction in fuel bills from last winter.

Customers with electric heat are expected to save only about 2 percent this winter as rising prices will also cut into savings. Pipeline capacity is also a concern for these customers since any difficulty in getting fuel to generators leads to volatile prices.

Heating oil customers may take advantage of lower crude oil prices and warmer weather to save up to 15 percent over last year. While any savings is good news, fuel oil will still be an expensive source of heat. Filling a 275 gallon tank will still cost around $1,000 in most areas.

Most people can still lower their energy costs


Even if we see lower energy bills this winter, the best value on the market isn't any of the fuel choices. A number of recent reports have confirmed that the best value, by far, is energy efficiency. By choosing to reduce waste, consumers are effectively buying electricity for around three cents a kilowatt hour. That is like putting three dollars back in your pocket for every dollar invested.

If you're not sure where to start, you can check your electric distribution company's website for rebates, discounts, and other programs that will save you money on saving energy. Thanks to Pennsylvania's Act 129, all our electric companies have programs in place to help consumers save. Often, savings can be obtained by simple, low cost projects that everyone can do such as replacing old lightbulbs with new LED bulbs, replacing your heater's air filter regularly, turning off lights when not in use, and setting back the thermostat when you leave the house.

There are also larger projects like improving insulation, sealing ductwork, and replacing inefficient appliances. Before tackling bigger projects, it may be worthwhile to hire a professional to do a home energy audit. This will provide valuable information on what are the most cost effective projects to start with. While audits can be expensive, many electric companies have programs in place to cover part, if not all, of the cost.

Rob Altenburg is senior energy analyst for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. He tweets @RobAltenburg.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Video Blog: EV Tailgate in Pittsburgh!

The Steelers were away this Sunday, but all the action was still at Heinz Field  in "Green Lot 22" with the first annual National Drive Electric Week Pittsburgh EV Tailgate. Check out our video blog below. 

The event was solar powered by SolarCast, a Pittsburgh-area manufacturer and designer of mobile renewable energy and emergency power solutions for government and industrial applications.


 Vimeo.


Evan Endres is project manager for the PennFuture Energy Center and is based in Pittsburgh. He tweets @ER_Endres.





























Wednesday, September 17, 2014

No surprises in the GAO report on EPA

In July 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that between 2 and 12 percent of coal capacity then in existence would retire by 2025. An updated report was released on September 15, 2014 that now pegs the expected retirements to about 13 percent of capacity, or 42 gigawatts (GW), nationwide. While Ohio is expected to see more retirements than any other state, Pennsylvania is number two with a little over 4.5 GW expected.

For those keeping score, this is on track with the 5 GW of capacity retirements we were expecting, but way less than alarming claims of a 75 percent loss of capacity (14 GW) that industry representatives and their allies have  been spreading.

While alarming claims are likely to continue and industry isn't going to stop blaming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) any time soon, the GAO reports there are stakeholders admitting that "some of these projected retirements may have occurred without the environmental regulations. Specifically, these stakeholders noted that several industry trends may be contributing to the retirement of coal-fueled generating units, including relatively low natural gas prices, increasing prices for coal, and low expected growth in demand for electricity."

That is supported by other information in the report, such as the characterization of which units are planned for retirement. The companies identified units that tend to be smaller, more polluting, and operating less than half of the hours they are available. That last item is particularly telling. In a competitive electric generation market like ours, plants bid into the market based on how much it costs them to operate, and the lowest bids get called to run first. If a plant isn't called up for most of its available hours, it's because it isn't cost-competitive with the other available generation. Once again showing that any "war on coal" that may exist is being fought between coal plants and more efficient generators, not coal vs. the EPA.

Contrary to claims that the EPA is out of touch, the GAO report also shows the EPA is paying close attention to issues such as price and reliability. Back in 2012, the GAO recommended the EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) create a process to "monitor industry progress" in responding to environmental regulations and the potential impacts. The GAO now reports that the EPA has organized a "regular monthly meeting with the three agencies and key stakeholders" as well as separate monthly conference calls with the agencies and electric grid operators.

It is understood that with the new EPA proposal, the monitoring and modeling efforts will need to increase, but it is clear that the EPA is sensitive to price and reliability issues. This is nothing new and it shouldn't be surprising. While EPA wants to avoid subsidizing polluters by letting them avoid regulatory requirements, there are many cases where EPA and states work together to make extensions to compliance deadlines when reliability is a legitimate concern. (As of last August, for example, the DEP reported approving 12 of the 13 requests for compliance extensions they received related to a recent EPA rule, and are still working on the remaining request.)

What this report shows, is that EPA is paying attention to concerns. When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, or any other environmental regulations, the EPA would be happy to hear better alternatives. They have even given extra time (until December 1, 2014) for folks to get comments in. If those who disagree with this plan have a better, more cost-effective plan to achieve the same reductions, let's hear it.

Rob Altenburg is senior energy analyst for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. He tweets @RobAltenburg.

Progress on updated building codes


On September 10, 2014, the Review and Advisory Committee (RAC) met to discuss its review process for changes to the Uniform Construction Code (UCC). Updated building codes save consumers’ money, reduce energy usage, and protect homeowners, workers, and first responders. Every three years, new model building codes are published and reviewed by the RAC. The Governor-appointed members of the RAC meet to determine which of these changes should be adopted. They have one year from the publication of the model codes to complete their review.In 2012, the RAC failed to follow legal requirements that guide the review process, and instead rejected all code updates.


This cycle, the RAC is tasked with reviewing thousands of changes to the code. Under the UCC, for each change to the code, the RAC needs to consider: (i) The impact that the provision may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public; (ii) The economic and financial impact of the provision; and (iii) The technical feasibility of the provision. In addition, pursuant to the Pennsylvania constitution, they must also consider the impact of their decision on the environment. The RAC has until July 2015 to figure out which of the thousands of code changes to recommend for adoption based on the above three standards.


In 2012, the RAC failed to perform the analysis required by the act, instead arbitrarily rejecting all code changes and effectively halting any progress that Pennsylvania could have made in the past three years to embrace updated building codes. As it currently stands, the Pennsylvania building codes are based on the 2009 UCC, putting us six years behind up-to-date building codes.  Confounding matters, the RAC is not permitted to review the changes set forth in the 2012 codes unless that same code is revised in the 2015 UCC. So, even assuming the RAC does its job this year, energy codes will not be able to be reviewed or adopted until they are revised again, whenever that may be.


But it’s not all bad news. PennFuture was pleased to see the RAC make some good faith efforts to develop a transparent and legally compliant code review process. The procedure announced at the September meeting establishes various sub-committees to review code revisions and make recommendations to the RAC throughout the review cycle. The RAC has a history of operating behind closed doors, outside of public scrutiny. The procedure announced at the September meeting will allow the public to comment both in writing and in scheduled meetings on recommendations that the sub-committees make. We still have concerns that due to the RAC's delay in developing a workable review process, the council will not be able to deal with the amount of work that is required by June.


Hopefully, this review cycle will be conducted in a timely manner with the benefit of insight from the public so that we can be sure that the RAC is considering our concerns.

Heather Langeland is a staff attorney for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.