A message to our RSS subscribers: We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to: http://mississippiriverdelta.org/feed/  Please consider also following Restore the Mississippi River Delta's work on other platforms: Sign up for our emails and action alerts Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram  Listen to our podcast

The post Update to RSS Feed appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

A message to our RSS subscribers: We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to: http://mississippiriverdelta.org/feed/  Please consider also following Restore the Mississippi River Delta's work on other platforms: Sign up for our emails and action alerts Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram  Listen to our podcast

The post Update to RSS Feed appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

A message to our RSS subscribers: We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to: http://mississippiriverdelta.org/feed/  Please consider also following Restore the Mississippi River Delta's work on other platforms: Sign up for our emails and action alerts Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram  Listen to our podcast

The post Update to RSS Feed appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Jason Mathers

A Ford at an electric car charging station in Buffalo, NY. Photo by Fortunate4now

The high level of confidence that automotive industry leaders have in the future of electric vehicles (EV’s) has been on full display recently.

In just the past few weeks:

• Tesla’s Model 3 started to roll off the assembly line
• Daimler announced a $740 million investment to produce EV batteries in China
• Cummins noted it would have a fully electric truck platform available by the end of 2019
• Lyft pledged to provide a billion rides a year powered by electricity by 2025
• Porsche set a 2023 target for having 50 percent of its production be electric vehicles
• Volvo Cars announced that “all the models it introduces starting in 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries”

This spurt of corporate announcements has been paired with a bevy of statements of international leadership:

• France declared it would be all electric by 2040
• India challenged itself to be gas free by 2030
• China took the global lead in terms of number of EVs on the road

These developments are more than just excitement about an emerging solution. They are indicators that the market for EVs is developing faster than anticipated even just last year.

Consider the findings of a new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It found that:

[L]ithium-ion cell costs have already fallen by 73 percent since 2010.

The report updated its future cost projections to reflect further steep cost reductions in the years ahead, with a price per kilowatt-hour in 2025 of $109 and in 2030 of $73.

Cost reductions on this order would result in EVs achieving cost parity with some classes of conventional vehicles by 2025 – and across most vehicle segments by 2029, according to the report. EV sales are expected to really take off once they achieve cost parity with conventional vehicles, as the vehicles are significantly less expensive to fuel and maintain.

The acceleration in the EV market is great news for climate protection too. A recent assessment found that zero-emission vehicles, such as EVs, need to comprise 40 percent of new vehicles sold by 2030 in order for the automotive sector to be on a path to achieve critical mid-century emissions targets. With the momentum in the EV market, we have a critical window to further boost this market by ensuring greater access of electric vehicles and a cleaner electric grid to power them.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not demonstrated the same appetite for national leadership on EVs as other countries. Even worse, we are going in the wrong direction – with serious implications for our health, climate and economy.

Instead of leading, the Trump Administration is undermining critical clean air and climate protections including the landmark clean car standards for 2022 to 2025. The actions of individual automakers, however, tell a very different story from the “can’t do it” mantra put forth by the Administration.

In their commitments, investments and new product introductions, automotive manufacturers and their suppliers are clearly telling us that low emissions vehicles can play a much bigger role in the near future.

The fact is that automakers can meet the existing 2022 to 2025 federal greenhouse gas standards through deployment of current conventional technology alone. Now, in addition to the robust pathway automakers have through existing technologies, EV adoption rates in the U.S. will be 10 percent in 2025 if the Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts hold true. This is further proof that the existing standards are highly achievable. Rather than weaken the standard, the Administration should be pursuing options to further scale EVs over the next decade.

Investing in clear car solutions is sound economic policy. These investments enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive sector.

This is why the UAW in a letter supporting the existing 2022 to 2025 clean car standards, noted:

UAW members know firsthand that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards have spurred investments in new products that employ tens of thousands of our members.

Like other key aspects of the potential of the emerging EV marketplace, the role it can play as an employer has been in the news recently too.

An AM General assembly plant in northern Indiana was acquired by electric vehicle manufacture SF Motors. The company announced that it will make a $30 million investment in the facility and keep on all the 430 employees.

Fittingly, most of the 430 jobs that were saved to manufacture an emerging, clean technology are represented by UAW Local 5 – the oldest continuously operating UAW Local in the country.

By Jason Mathers

A Ford at an electric car charging station in Buffalo, NY. Photo by Fortunate4now

The high level of confidence that automotive industry leaders have in the future of electric vehicles (EV’s) has been on full display recently.

In just the past few weeks:

• Tesla’s Model 3 started to roll off the assembly line
• Daimler announced a $740 million investment to produce EV batteries in China
• Cummins noted it would have a fully electric truck platform available by the end of 2019
• Lyft pledged to provide a billion rides a year powered by electricity by 2025
• Porsche set a 2023 target for having 50 percent of its production be electric vehicles
• Volvo Cars announced that “all the models it introduces starting in 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries”

This spurt of corporate announcements has been paired with a bevy of statements of international leadership:

• France declared it would be all electric by 2040
• India challenged itself to be gas free by 2030
• China took the global lead in terms of number of EVs on the road

These developments are more than just excitement about an emerging solution. They are indicators that the market for EVs is developing faster than anticipated even just last year.

Consider the findings of a new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It found that:

[L]ithium-ion cell costs have already fallen by 73 percent since 2010.

The report updated its future cost projections to reflect further steep cost reductions in the years ahead, with a price per kilowatt-hour in 2025 of $109 and in 2030 of $73.

Cost reductions on this order would result in EVs achieving cost parity with some classes of conventional vehicles by 2025 – and across most vehicle segments by 2029, according to the report. EV sales are expected to really take off once they achieve cost parity with conventional vehicles, as the vehicles are significantly less expensive to fuel and maintain.

The acceleration in the EV market is great news for climate protection too. A recent assessment found that zero-emission vehicles, such as EVs, need to comprise 40 percent of new vehicles sold by 2030 in order for the automotive sector to be on a path to achieve critical mid-century emissions targets. With the momentum in the EV market, we have a critical window to further boost this market by ensuring greater access of electric vehicles and a cleaner electric grid to power them.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not demonstrated the same appetite for national leadership on EVs as other countries. Even worse, we are going in the wrong direction – with serious implications for our health, climate and economy.

Instead of leading, the Trump Administration is undermining critical clean air and climate protections including the landmark clean car standards for 2022 to 2025. The actions of individual automakers, however, tell a very different story from the “can’t do it” mantra put forth by the Administration.

In their commitments, investments and new product introductions, automotive manufacturers and their suppliers are clearly telling us that low emissions vehicles can play a much bigger role in the near future.

The fact is that automakers can meet the existing 2022 to 2025 federal greenhouse gas standards through deployment of current conventional technology alone. Now, in addition to the robust pathway automakers have through existing technologies, EV adoption rates in the U.S. will be 10 percent in 2025 if the Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts hold true. This is further proof that the existing standards are highly achievable. Rather than weaken the standard, the Administration should be pursuing options to further scale EVs over the next decade.

Investing in clear car solutions is sound economic policy. These investments enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive sector.

This is why the UAW in a letter supporting the existing 2022 to 2025 clean car standards, noted:

UAW members know firsthand that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards have spurred investments in new products that employ tens of thousands of our members.

Like other key aspects of the potential of the emerging EV marketplace, the role it can play as an employer has been in the news recently too.

An AM General assembly plant in northern Indiana was acquired by electric vehicle manufacture SF Motors. The company announced that it will make a $30 million investment in the facility and keep on all the 430 employees.

Fittingly, most of the 430 jobs that were saved to manufacture an emerging, clean technology are represented by UAW Local 5 – the oldest continuously operating UAW Local in the country.

The high level of confidence that automotive industry leaders have in the future of electric vehicles (EV’s) has been on full display recently. In just the past few weeks: Tesla’s Model 3 started to roll off the assembly line Daimler announced a $740 million investment to produce EV batteries in China Cummins noted it would […]

The high level of confidence that automotive industry leaders have in the future of electric vehicles (EV’s) has been on full display recently. In just the past few weeks: Tesla’s Model 3 started to roll off the assembly line Daimler announced a $740 million investment to produce EV batteries in China Cummins noted it would […]

The post Electric vehicles enter the here and now appeared first on Climate 411.

On today’s show Teresa Chan & Amy Streitweiser of Environmental Law Institute (ELI) join the program to talk with Simone about ELI and the upcoming environmental impact study (EIS) on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion. On the second half the show, Natalie Peyronnin, Director of Science Policy and Mississippi River Delta Restoration at the Environmental Defense Fund stops by to talk with Simone about the history of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project and what to expect from the EIS process. Below ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Teresa Chan & Amy Streitweiser of Environmental Law Institute (ELI) join the program to talk with Simone about ELI and the upcoming environmental impact study (EIS) on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion. On the second half the show, Natalie Peyronnin, Director of Science Policy and Mississippi River Delta Restoration at the Environmental Defense Fund stops by to talk with Simone about the history of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project and what to expect from the EIS process. Below ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Teresa Chan & Amy Streitweiser of Environmental Law Institute (ELI) join the program to talk with Simone about ELI and the upcoming environmental impact study (EIS) on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion. On the second half the show, Natalie Peyronnin, Director of Science Policy and Mississippi River Delta Restoration at the Environmental Defense Fund stops by to talk with Simone about the history of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project and what to expect from the EIS process. Below ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Tim O'Connor

In early 2016, southern California awoke to the harsh reality that reliable operation of the regional energy system might be tied to a single aging natural gas storage field called Aliso Canyon, where a catastrophic blowout that started the previous October was not closed until February. So while Southern California Gas Company got to work to repair the facility, several government and private institutions also went to work assessing whether the facility was actually needed in the first place.

Last week multiple state agencies issued a verdict that Aliso Canyon is now safe, and giving the green light to increase the gas stored in it on a limited basis. The decision caused an outcry from nearby residents, but it should also be a concern for utility customers throughout the region.

But what if we don’t need the facility at all? Why take the risk? The latest analysis strongly suggests we don’t have to.

Policy is clear

After the massive leak, state elected officials passed a piece of legislation, SB 380, writing into law a preference for minimizing or eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural facility so long as the region could maintain reliable gas and electric service. Even if Aliso Canyon could be operated safely, the law is clear that closure should be the course of action if those conditions hold.

In support of this policy, last week, in a statement apparently timed to correspond with the safety finding, California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller said that:

“Governor Brown has asked me to plan for the permanent closure of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility…a plan to phase out the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility within ten years…I am confident that through sustained investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric storage technologies and other strategies, we can make this transition a reality.”

How much storage is required?

Aliso Canyon is one of several underground storage facilities that supply gas to the region’s electric generating plants, as well as direct household and industrial uses. The answer to whether it’s necessary depends entirely on the timeframe evaluated (e.g. needed over the summer, for next winter, at any point in the next 10 years, etc.) and the actions California takes — or doesn’t take — during that time.

On one side of the debate over need, SoCalGas has long argued that Aliso canyon is needed to maintain reliability in both the short and long term. Studies by state energy agencies mostly support that assertion – in particular for the short term. As recently as last week, for example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released figures saying that Aliso Canyon needs to hold about 23 billion cubic feet of gas (roughly 28% of capacity) to ensure reliability in the case of other gas outages.

On the other side though, analysis shows the utility and state estimates may be overblown. For example, a detailed set of comments and examination filed by EDF (prepared with assistance from Skipping Stone LLC) with the Commission yesterday strongly suggests that the facility is likely not needed – either in the immediate timeframe or in the next 10 years.

This analysis shows that demand previously met by Aliso Canyon can be supplied by a combination of gas already being imported from out-of-state or available at other existing storage fields, combined with sensible policies like gas market refinements that reduce the overall need for storage sites like Aliso canyon.

With a storage volume of nearly 50 billion cubic feet in three neighboring storage fields, and the ability to rapidly charge and discharge, the study says that SoCalGas can deliver more than sufficient quantities of natural gas into southern California on a moment’s notice, and refill the reserves in a matter of days. If these fields are maintained between 70% and 80% full, according to Skipping Stone, maintaining overall energy reliability is not an issue.

Reducing Dependence

Skipping Stone and EDF also said that new forecasting policies can improve overall reliability without Aliso Canyon. If California requires SoCalGas and other parties using gas in the region to do a better job predicting demand ahead of time and aligning gas purchases with those projections, the need to keep inventory stored in these facilities for reliability will be dramatically reduced.

Therefore, rather than providing seasonal assurance and opportunities price arbitrage as it does today, existing capacity can be streamlined to support real-operations and needs of the energy system, leaving more than enough extra capacity on the system to ensure reliability even in extreme circumstances.

A public process will have the final say

On August 1, 2017, the CPUC will hold a public meeting to continue research and modelling necessary to look at the short term and long term need of the facility – and the overall process is expected to take a full year.  What is clear from this process– even if the facility is found to be safe – is that the need for Aliso Canyon (and any policies the state can pursue to minimize that need) must be incorporated into any decision about its long-term future.

By Tim O'Connor

In early 2016, southern California awoke to the harsh reality that reliable operation of the regional energy system might be tied to a single aging natural gas storage field called Aliso Canyon, where a catastrophic blowout that started the previous October was not closed until February. So while Southern California Gas Company got to work to repair the facility, several government and private institutions also went to work assessing whether the facility was actually needed in the first place.

Last week multiple state agencies issued a verdict that Aliso Canyon is now safe, and giving the green light to increase the gas stored in it on a limited basis. The decision caused an outcry from nearby residents, but it should also be a concern for utility customers throughout the region.

But what if we don’t need the facility at all? Why take the risk? The latest analysis strongly suggests we don’t have to.

Policy is clear

After the massive leak, state elected officials passed a piece of legislation, SB 380, writing into law a preference for minimizing or eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural facility so long as the region could maintain reliable gas and electric service. Even if Aliso Canyon could be operated safely, the law is clear that closure should be the course of action if those conditions hold.

In support of this policy, last week, in a statement apparently timed to correspond with the safety finding, California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller said that:

“Governor Brown has asked me to plan for the permanent closure of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility…a plan to phase out the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility within ten years…I am confident that through sustained investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric storage technologies and other strategies, we can make this transition a reality.”

How much storage is required?

Aliso Canyon is one of several underground storage facilities that supply gas to the region’s electric generating plants, as well as direct household and industrial uses. The answer to whether it’s necessary depends entirely on the timeframe evaluated (e.g. needed over the summer, for next winter, at any point in the next 10 years, etc.) and the actions California takes — or doesn’t take — during that time.

On one side of the debate over need, SoCalGas has long argued that Aliso canyon is needed to maintain reliability in both the short and long term. Studies by state energy agencies mostly support that assertion – in particular for the short term. As recently as last week, for example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released figures saying that Aliso Canyon needs to hold about 23 billion cubic feet of gas (roughly 28% of capacity) to ensure reliability in the case of other gas outages.

On the other side though, analysis shows the utility and state estimates may be overblown. For example, a detailed set of comments and examination filed by EDF (prepared with assistance from Skipping Stone LLC) with the Commission yesterday strongly suggests that the facility is likely not needed – either in the immediate timeframe or in the next 10 years.

This analysis shows that demand previously met by Aliso Canyon can be supplied by a combination of gas already being imported from out-of-state or available at other existing storage fields, combined with sensible policies like gas market refinements that reduce the overall need for storage sites like Aliso canyon.

With a storage volume of nearly 50 billion cubic feet in three neighboring storage fields, and the ability to rapidly charge and discharge, the study says that SoCalGas can deliver more than sufficient quantities of natural gas into southern California on a moment’s notice, and refill the reserves in a matter of days. If these fields are maintained between 70% and 80% full, according to Skipping Stone, maintaining overall energy reliability is not an issue.

Reducing Dependence

Skipping Stone and EDF also said that new forecasting policies can improve overall reliability without Aliso Canyon. If California requires SoCalGas and other parties using gas in the region to do a better job predicting demand ahead of time and aligning gas purchases with those projections, the need to keep inventory stored in these facilities for reliability will be dramatically reduced.

Therefore, rather than providing seasonal assurance and opportunities price arbitrage as it does today, existing capacity can be streamlined to support real-operations and needs of the energy system, leaving more than enough extra capacity on the system to ensure reliability even in extreme circumstances.

A public process will have the final say

On August 1, 2017, the CPUC will hold a public meeting to continue research and modelling necessary to look at the short term and long term need of the facility – and the overall process is expected to take a full year.  What is clear from this process– even if the facility is found to be safe – is that the need for Aliso Canyon (and any policies the state can pursue to minimize that need) must be incorporated into any decision about its long-term future.

By Tim O'Connor

In early 2016, southern California awoke to the harsh reality that reliable operation of the regional energy system might be tied to a single aging natural gas storage field called Aliso Canyon, where a catastrophic blowout that started the previous October was not closed until February. So while Southern California Gas Company got to work to repair the facility, several government and private institutions also went to work assessing whether the facility was actually needed in the first place.

Last week multiple state agencies issued a verdict that Aliso Canyon is now safe, and giving the green light to increase the gas stored in it on a limited basis. The decision caused an outcry from nearby residents, but it should also be a concern for utility customers throughout the region.

But what if we don’t need the facility at all? Why take the risk? The latest analysis strongly suggests we don’t have to.

Policy is clear

After the massive leak, state elected officials passed a piece of legislation, SB 380, writing into law a preference for minimizing or eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural facility so long as the region could maintain reliable gas and electric service. Even if Aliso Canyon could be operated safely, the law is clear that closure should be the course of action if those conditions hold.

In support of this policy, last week, in a statement apparently timed to correspond with the safety finding, California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller said that:

“Governor Brown has asked me to plan for the permanent closure of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility…a plan to phase out the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility within ten years…I am confident that through sustained investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric storage technologies and other strategies, we can make this transition a reality.”

How much storage is required?

Aliso Canyon is one of several underground storage facilities that supply gas to the region’s electric generating plants, as well as direct household and industrial uses. The answer to whether it’s necessary depends entirely on the timeframe evaluated (e.g. needed over the summer, for next winter, at any point in the next 10 years, etc.) and the actions California takes — or doesn’t take — during that time.

On one side of the debate over need, SoCalGas has long argued that Aliso canyon is needed to maintain reliability in both the short and long term. Studies by state energy agencies mostly support that assertion – in particular for the short term. As recently as last week, for example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released figures saying that Aliso Canyon needs to hold about 23 billion cubic feet of gas (roughly 28% of capacity) to ensure reliability in the case of other gas outages.

On the other side though, analysis shows the utility and state estimates may be overblown. For example, a detailed set of comments and examination filed by EDF (prepared with assistance from Skipping Stone LLC) with the Commission yesterday strongly suggests that the facility is likely not needed – either in the immediate timeframe or in the next 10 years.

This analysis shows that demand previously met by Aliso Canyon can be supplied by a combination of gas already being imported from out-of-state or available at other existing storage fields, combined with sensible policies like gas market refinements that reduce the overall need for storage sites like Aliso canyon.

With a storage volume of nearly 50 billion cubic feet in three neighboring storage fields, and the ability to rapidly charge and discharge, the study says that SoCalGas can deliver more than sufficient quantities of natural gas into southern California on a moment’s notice, and refill the reserves in a matter of days. If these fields are maintained between 70% and 80% full, according to Skipping Stone, maintaining overall energy reliability is not an issue.

Reducing Dependence

Skipping Stone and EDF also said that new forecasting policies can improve overall reliability without Aliso Canyon. If California requires SoCalGas and other parties using gas in the region to do a better job predicting demand ahead of time and aligning gas purchases with those projections, the need to keep inventory stored in these facilities for reliability will be dramatically reduced.

Therefore, rather than providing seasonal assurance and opportunities price arbitrage as it does today, existing capacity can be streamlined to support real-operations and needs of the energy system, leaving more than enough extra capacity on the system to ensure reliability even in extreme circumstances.

A public process will have the final say

On August 1, 2017, the CPUC will hold a public meeting to continue research and modelling necessary to look at the short term and long term need of the facility – and the overall process is expected to take a full year.  What is clear from this process– even if the facility is found to be safe – is that the need for Aliso Canyon (and any policies the state can pursue to minimize that need) must be incorporated into any decision about its long-term future.

By Tim O'Connor

In early 2016, southern California awoke to the harsh reality that reliable operation of the regional energy system might be tied to a single aging natural gas storage field called Aliso Canyon, where a catastrophic blowout that started the previous October was not closed until February. So while Southern California Gas Company got to work to repair the facility, several government and private institutions also went to work assessing whether the facility was actually needed in the first place.

Last week multiple state agencies issued a verdict that Aliso Canyon is now safe, and giving the green light to increase the gas stored in it on a limited basis. The decision caused an outcry from nearby residents, but it should also be a concern for utility customers throughout the region.

But what if we don’t need the facility at all? Why take the risk? The latest analysis strongly suggests we don’t have to.

Policy is clear

After the massive leak, state elected officials passed a piece of legislation, SB 380, writing into law a preference for minimizing or eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural facility so long as the region could maintain reliable gas and electric service. Even if Aliso Canyon could be operated safely, the law is clear that closure should be the course of action if those conditions hold.

In support of this policy, last week, in a statement apparently timed to correspond with the safety finding, California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller said that:

“Governor Brown has asked me to plan for the permanent closure of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility…a plan to phase out the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility within ten years…I am confident that through sustained investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric storage technologies and other strategies, we can make this transition a reality.”

How much storage is required?

Aliso Canyon is one of several underground storage facilities that supply gas to the region’s electric generating plants, as well as direct household and industrial uses. The answer to whether it’s necessary depends entirely on the timeframe evaluated (e.g. needed over the summer, for next winter, at any point in the next 10 years, etc.) and the actions California takes — or doesn’t take — during that time.

On one side of the debate over need, SoCalGas has long argued that Aliso canyon is needed to maintain reliability in both the short and long term. Studies by state energy agencies mostly support that assertion – in particular for the short term. As recently as last week, for example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released figures saying that Aliso Canyon needs to hold about 23 billion cubic feet of gas (roughly 28% of capacity) to ensure reliability in the case of other gas outages.

On the other side though, analysis shows the utility and state estimates may be overblown. For example, a detailed set of comments and examination filed by EDF (prepared with assistance from Skipping Stone LLC) with the Commission yesterday strongly suggests that the facility is likely not needed – either in the immediate timeframe or in the next 10 years.

This analysis shows that demand previously met by Aliso Canyon can be supplied by a combination of gas already being imported from out-of-state or available at other existing storage fields, combined with sensible policies like gas market refinements that reduce the overall need for storage sites like Aliso canyon.

With a storage volume of nearly 50 billion cubic feet in three neighboring storage fields, and the ability to rapidly charge and discharge, the study says that SoCalGas can deliver more than sufficient quantities of natural gas into southern California on a moment’s notice, and refill the reserves in a matter of days. If these fields are maintained between 70% and 80% full, according to Skipping Stone, maintaining overall energy reliability is not an issue.

Reducing Dependence

Skipping Stone and EDF also said that new forecasting policies can improve overall reliability without Aliso Canyon. If California requires SoCalGas and other parties using gas in the region to do a better job predicting demand ahead of time and aligning gas purchases with those projections, the need to keep inventory stored in these facilities for reliability will be dramatically reduced.

Therefore, rather than providing seasonal assurance and opportunities price arbitrage as it does today, existing capacity can be streamlined to support real-operations and needs of the energy system, leaving more than enough extra capacity on the system to ensure reliability even in extreme circumstances.

A public process will have the final say

On August 1, 2017, the CPUC will hold a public meeting to continue research and modelling necessary to look at the short term and long term need of the facility – and the overall process is expected to take a full year.  What is clear from this process– even if the facility is found to be safe – is that the need for Aliso Canyon (and any policies the state can pursue to minimize that need) must be incorporated into any decision about its long-term future.

By Dick Munson

Crain's Cleveland Business first published this op-ed on July 16, 2017. 

Ohio long has been a bellwether state. Politically, no state during the past 120 years has picked more winners of presidential elections. Ohio also reflects the nation's diverse and evolving set of energy resources. In particular, this past year Ohio became ground zero in the electricity wars. Its utilities are seeking subsidies for uneconomic power plants, setting up a lively federalism debate about when states can encourage specific energy technologies. Meanwhile, Ohio manufacturers and customers are seeking to break up utility monopolies, provoking discussions about the role of competition in electricity markets.

Ohio's largest utility, FirstEnergy, has frequently approached the subsidy trough, initially to bail out a nuclear reactor and several coal plants. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected that $4 billion plea, noting it would distort regional electricity markets. FirstEnergy then asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for the same amount, but this time as free money that might help the debt-burdened utility improve its credit rating. When the PUCO approved only a small portion of that subsidy, FirstEnergy then asked for more subsidies to keep operating its two uneconomic nuclear reactors. The most recent effort faced fierce opposition and has stalled.

Ohio electricity battles abound
Click To Tweet

AEP has joined some of these subsidy appeals and recently led an additional, multi-utility legislative campaign to bail out two coal-fired generators built in the early 1950s. The potential cost of bailing out the power plants is high and long-lasting: Ohio manufacturers and consumers calculate this legislative proposal would cost businesses and families in Ohio "as much as $256 million (or more) per year in rate increases for decades."

Put another way, customers would have had to pay to correct the utilities' bad business decisions.

The bill likely will be revived in the fall.

The utilities also saw opportunity in the fast-tracked budget bill, trying to sneak in a provision that would give higher rates to utilities facing problems. Even the Legislative Service Commission admitted the provision would have led to electricity rate increases. Put another way, customers would have had to pay to correct the utilities' bad business decisions, like building coal plants as natural gas prices were plummeting. The legislature fortunately removed this from the budget bill.

 

Crain's Cleveland Business first published this op-ed on July 16, 2017.  Ohio long has been a bellwether state. Politically, no state during the past 120 years has picked more winners of presidential elections. Ohio also reflects the nation's diverse and evolving set of energy resources. In particular, this past year Ohio became ground zero in […]

Crain's Cleveland Business first published this op-ed on July 16, 2017.  Ohio long has been a bellwether state. Politically, no state during the past 120 years has picked more winners of presidential elections. Ohio also reflects the nation's diverse and evolving set of energy resources. In particular, this past year Ohio became ground zero in […]

By Dick Munson

Crain's Cleveland Business first published this op-ed on July 16, 2017. 

Ohio long has been a bellwether state. Politically, no state during the past 120 years has picked more winners of presidential elections. Ohio also reflects the nation's diverse and evolving set of energy resources. In particular, this past year Ohio became ground zero in the electricity wars. Its utilities are seeking subsidies for uneconomic power plants, setting up a lively federalism debate about when states can encourage specific energy technologies. Meanwhile, Ohio manufacturers and customers are seeking to break up utility monopolies, provoking discussions about the role of competition in electricity markets.

Ohio's largest utility, FirstEnergy, has frequently approached the subsidy trough, initially to bail out a nuclear reactor and several coal plants. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected that $4 billion plea, noting it would distort regional electricity markets. FirstEnergy then asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for the same amount, but this time as free money that might help the debt-burdened utility improve its credit rating. When the PUCO approved only a small portion of that subsidy, FirstEnergy then asked for more subsidies to keep operating its two uneconomic nuclear reactors. The most recent effort faced fierce opposition and has stalled.

Ohio electricity battles abound
Click To Tweet

AEP has joined some of these subsidy appeals and recently led an additional, multi-utility legislative campaign to bail out two coal-fired generators built in the early 1950s. The potential cost of bailing out the power plants is high and long-lasting: Ohio manufacturers and consumers calculate this legislative proposal would cost businesses and families in Ohio "as much as $256 million (or more) per year in rate increases for decades."

Put another way, customers would have had to pay to correct the utilities' bad business decisions.

The bill likely will be revived in the fall.

The utilities also saw opportunity in the fast-tracked budget bill, trying to sneak in a provision that would give higher rates to utilities facing problems. Even the Legislative Service Commission admitted the provision would have led to electricity rate increases. Put another way, customers would have had to pay to correct the utilities' bad business decisions, like building coal plants as natural gas prices were plummeting. The legislature fortunately removed this from the budget bill.

 

Crain’s Cleveland Business first published this op-ed on July 16, 2017.  Ohio long has been a bellwether state. Politically, no state during the past 120 years has picked more winners of presidential elections. Ohio also reflects the nation’s diverse and evolving set of energy resources. In particular, this past year Ohio became ground zero in […]

The post Ohio electricity battles abound appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By EDF Oceans

A message to our RSS subscribers:
We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to:  http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/feed/