Featured photo from our gallery:
JUL 28, 2016 @ 12:45 PM
Peter Kelly-Detwiler , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover the energy industry.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
A state of affairs that cannot be ignored - This past month, Fitch Ratings issued a note highlighting the risk of solar energy net metering to the creditworthiness of America’s publicly traded electric utilities. The agency noted that distributed (rooftop) solar now represents 1% of all energy generated, and the potential to further eat into utility revenues is an issue to be concerned about.
Indeed, electricity sales have declined in five of the past eight years. It’s not just solar, though. Efficient end use technologies, such as LED lighting and better HVAC systems further cut waste. The emerging universe of cheap and ultimately ubiquitous sensors promises to further reduce consumption by allowing us to see when, where and how energy is consumed at the end-use level. This holds the promise to do two things:
- reduce demand when electricity is more expensive (thereby slashing utility demand charge revenues), and
- cut overall kilowatt-hour consumption by creating the opportunity for use-directed consumption (for example, fine tuning where, when and how much lighting and heating/cooling you need). In short, sensors and a pervasive IT network have the potential to substitute intelligence for raw materials.
Finally, the rapidly evolving energy storage market holds the potential to dramatically increase the phenomenon known as ‘load defection’ (which is when a significant portion of your load is served by your own resources, often a combination of solar and batteries, but you’re still connected to the power grid).
Image: US EIA – not a reassuring picture
The utilities’ response - Clearly, there is a tectonic shift going on in energy markets that has already affected utilities and this dynamic is accelerating as costs of alternatives continue to plummet. U.S. utilities and energy holding companies are responding in a number of ways, by:Share This Post
JUL 27, 2016 @ 07:51 AM
Ken Silverstein , CONTRIBUTOR
I write about the global energy business.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
A delegate holds a sign that reads ‘A future to believe in’ on the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 26, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. An estimated 50,000 people are expected in Philadelphia, including hundreds of protesters and members of the media. The four-day Democratic National Convention kicked off July 25. (Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)
While Donald Trump is out mocking climate change and those who would seek to mitigate its harmful effects, Hillary Clinton is out discussing the issue and trying to find workable solutions. The irony here — if you can call it that — is that a lot of conservatives are rallying to Clinton’s side, saying that free market fixes do exist.
None of this is to say that reaching a legislative milestone in the U.S. Congress is possible, at least in the near term. For that to happen, the market forces calling for change must become so swift and irreversible that even the biggest skeptics would be swept up by the cause. That point will eventually arrive. But until then, political contributions will carry more weight than the prevailing science.
The Republican Party platform is calling for the abolition of regulations to curtail emissions from coal-fired power plants while also saying that the fuel source is a “clean” energy form. Meantime, its presidential nominee is saying that climate change is a “total hoax.” The Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for the country to generate half of its electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.
“The difference between the parties has a great deal more to do with the potential winners and losers during this transition than it does with the science itself,” says John Farrell, the director of the Energy Democracy initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in an interview. “Follow the money. That’s a good way to understand the party platforms.”Share This Post
Finally, the climate teardown of Trump you’ve been waiting for
By Rebecca Leber on Jul 28, 2016 1:32 am
PHILADELPHIA — Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention was dedicated to ripping apart the GOP nominee while extending an olive branch to blue-collar voters and moderate Republicans. With so much material to choose from, perhaps it’s no surprise that Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, and President Obama stuck largely to their opponent’s character and business record.
So it was left to California Gov. Jerry Brown, as chief executive of one of the most progressive states in the union on climate and energy — and one suffering from a multi-year drought that Donald Trump doesn’t think is real — to make the contrast between Trump and the Dems on sustainability. Brown devoted his entire speech to tearing down the real estate developer’s public statements on climate science, with one-liners earning cheers from the audience.
“Trump says global warming is a hoax. I say Trump is a fraud,” Brown declared. “Trump says there’s no drought in California. I say Trump lies.”Share This Post
JULY 27, 2016 9:00 PM
Jerry Brown: 'We're not even close to where we need to be' on climate change 0:34
Gov. Jerry Brown says he plans to talk about climate change when he addresses the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. firstname.lastname@example.org
BY JEREMY B. WHITE
Climate change policies appeal to a majority of Californians despite the possibility of higher energy costs, a new Public Policy Institute of California poll has found.
“Californians tend to have a hesitancy to support policies that are going to impact their pocketbooks, but in this case they seem to be willing to do so,” said PPIC president Mark Baldassare, calling the findings an endorsement of “the direction (the state) has taken in the last ten years to be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Environmentalists laud California for its ambitious efforts to fight climate change, and Gov. Jerry Brown has placed the issue at the center of his fourth-term agenda. Last year Brown signed a measure vastly expanding the state’s use of renewable energy.
But the road ahead for California’s cap-and-trade program, which requires businesses to buy permits for the carbon they emit, has become unclear. A recent auction reaped a comparatively tiny amount of revenue. Its legal foundation has come under question. And the program sunsets in 2020, spurring politically fraught efforts to extend it.
Those headwinds notwithstanding, California residents still support cap-and-trade (54 percent) and the underlying goal of reducing greenhouse gases, according to the poll. Around two-thirds of likely voters (62 percent) back the goal of reducing emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, a target that is central to cap-and-trade’s mission. Helping explain that support are the large majorities (81 percent of adults and 75 percent of likely voters) who called climate change a serious threat.Share This Post
JULY 27, 2016 3:01 PM
State Forestry and Fire Protection firefighters remove dead trees near Cressman. The drought and bark beetles have caused the largest die-off in Sierra forests in modern history, raising fears of catastrophic wildfires. Scott Smith Associated Press
BY RANDY HANVELT
AND JULIA LEVIN
Special to The Bee
Randy Hanvelt is a member of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and can be contacted at RHanvelt@co.tuolumne.ca.us.
Julia Levin is executive director of the Bioenergy Association of California and a former deputy secretary at the California Natural Resources Agency. She can be contacted at email@example.com.
When Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Michael Picker as president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Picker announced that his top priority would be protection of public safety. Last October, Brown declared an emergency for California’s forests, where tens of millions of dead trees pose enormous risks for wildfires, the water supply, local communities and more.
The emergency order calls on the PUC to accelerate the development of small bioenergy facilities to convert the dead trees to renewable energy. Despite the obvious threat to public safety and the huge costs of wildfire, the commission is dragging its feet.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, there are more than 66 million dead trees in just six counties – and millions more throughout the state – due to bark beetles, drought and other factors. That number is going up quickly.
The dead trees greatly increase the risk of catastrophic fires. California has lost more acres to wildfires in the past five years than in the previous 70. In 2015, it lost almost 1,400 square miles, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. In addition, wildfire is a huge source of air pollution and causes 10 percent of California’s climate pollution. Large fires also threaten California’s largest source of water and entire forest ecosystems.Share This Post
The Energy Gang asks: Is Musk’s latest plan “idiocy cubed”? Or the right amount of ambition at just the right time?
by Stephen Lacey July 27, 2016
Last week, Tesla Motors dropped “motors” from its name, and is now calling itself just Tesla. This is an indication that the electric car company is thinking about much more than cars. And Elon Musk went way beyond indicating a shift -- he explicitly spelled it out in his new master plan, published last Thursday.
His first master plan, published in 2006, described the company we know today: build an expensive electric car, improve manufacturing, build a less expensive car, grow manufacturing, and finally build a mass-market EV. While Tesla hasn’t always hit Musk’s ambitious timeframes, it is on a path to achieving his original vision.
Part two is much more ambitious. It includes building a seamless solar-plus-storage offering, dominating grid-scale storage, revolutionizing busses and tractor-trailers, and making shared fleets of autonomous vehicles available to all.
As Musk described in his post: “Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy squared.”
So is his latest plan idiocy cubed? Or the right amount of Muskian ambition at just the right time? In this week's podcast, we dissect the plan.Share This Post
- TRANSPORTATION DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07.26.16.
LAST WEEK, TECH wonderboy Elon Musk released his much-awaited Master Plan, Part Deux, a wildly ambitious blueprint to change American mobility as we know it: autonomous buses that might appear on-demand, and new electric big-rigs, pick-ups and SUVs.
Oh, and sharing. Lots of sharing. Anyone will be able to use the Tesla app to add their self-driving Tesla to the wider Tesla fleet, Musk says. It will allow cash-poor wannabe Tesla owners the chance to take one for a spin while its real owner is, say, disrupting the Silicon Valley biotech venture capital ecosystem or whatever. Opening up a car to generate income might make Teslas more accessible to all, Musk argues.
But does anyone really want to share their own, personal car? Much less their Tesla? It’s a question more than a few automakers and car-adjacent firms are scrambling to answer.
Here now are two main of schools thought. The Tesla model: I own my car, you borrow it. The Uber and Lyft model: They own the car, you borrow it. Today, the latter feels more likely. This is how Musk himself put it just two years ago: “I think there will be some amount of car sharing for sure, but I think there’s like a limit to the whole sharing thing. There is an important role for sharing but it’s not—most things don’t get shared.”
Regular ride-hailing service users are already comfortable with hopping into strangers’ vehicles. Lending their own cars out to Internet randos? Not so much. But then again, not so not so much. A decade ago, people might have quailed at the idea of allowing strangers into their homes. Today, Airbnb has a $30 billion valuation.Share This Post
|Downtown Vancouver, from the air.|
Last year, Vancouver, British Columbia, officially adopted the goal of powering itself entirely with clean energy by 2050.
That’s a bigger deal than it might sound. Plenty of North American cities have committed to getting all their electricity from clean sources within a few decades. But when it comes to decarbonization, electricity is the easy part. (Okay, maybe not easy, but easier.)
Vancouver has resolved to get all its energy, not just electricity, from renewable sources.
The city’s electricity is already 98 percent carbon-free anyway. It comes from hydroelectric dams, via the province’s primary utility, BC Hydro. So the big problems over the next 35 years will be eliminating natural gas for heating and gasoline for transportation, two of the thorniest decarbonization challenges.
Sadhu Johnston helped develop and implement Vancouver’s pathbreaking Greenest City Plan over seven years of work as deputy city manager (during which he also co-authored a book called The Guide to Greening Cities). He was deputy chief of staff to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley — and Chicago’s chief environmental officer, the first such position created in city government in the US — when Vancouver recruited him in 2009. Now, as of earlier this year, he is city manager, overseeing the whole enchilada.
I spoke with him last month on Cortes Island in BC, where our discussion ranged widely over Vancouver’s challenges. I’ve organized it into roughly five sections: heating and buildings, cars and trucks, density, bikes, and larger social challenges. (Definitely read the final section, even if you skip the rest.) I’ve also edited for length and clarity.
David Roberts: You’re aiming to power Vancouver with 100 percent clean energy by 2050. How are you doing so far?
Sadhu Johnston: We're about 37 to 38 percent renewably powered now in Vancouver, largely because of [clean electricity from] BC Hydro.Share This Post
By DIANE CARDWELLJULY 26, 2016
Elroy Holtmann in his garage in Lafayette, Calif., where the power from his solar panels is used to charge his electric Chevy Volt.
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
LAFAYETTE, Calif. — It was only two years ago that Elroy Holtmann spent about $20,000 on a home solar array to help cover the costs of charging his new electric car. With the savings on his monthly electric bills, he figured the investment would pay for itself in about a dozen years.
But then the utilities regulators changed the equation.
As a result, Pacific Gas & Electric recently did away with the rate schedule chosen by Mr. Holtmann, a retired electrical engineer, and many other solar customers in this part of California. The new schedule will make them pay much more for the electricity they draw from the grid in the evening, while paying those customers less for the excess power their solar panels send back to the grid on sunny summer days.
As a result, Mr. Holtmann’s solar setup may never pay for itself.
“They’ve taken any possibility for payback away,” he said with resignation, looking up at the roof of his 1970s ranch-style house in this suburb a short drive east of Berkeley.
The paradox is playing out around the country. Even as policy makers at the federal and state levels promote clean energy to fight global warming, the economics of electricity can often be at odds with those goals.
Thrust in the middle are utility regulators. Even if they support greening the grid through technology adopters like Mr. Holtmann, the regulators are also responsible for ensuring that the utilities can afford to supply power to the largest number of customers at the most equitable rates. That includes people without the money or inclination to install solar collectors.
“The grid is no longer just a cheap way to get electrical commodities to people,” said Michael Picker, president of the California Public Utilities Commission. “People want choices, they want customized services,” he said. “And how do you make that fair to everybody, because not everybody is moving as adopters at the same pace?”Share This Post
By Bob Egelko Updated 5:38 pm, Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Photo: Jeff Chiu, Associated Press
IMAGE 1 OF 2
A massive fire following a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. pipeline explosion roars through a mostly residential neighborhood in San Bruno, Calif., on Sept. 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was “a company that lost its way” and was driven by greed to violate pipeline safety laws both before and after the deadly 2010 pipeline explosion in San Bruno, a federal prosecutor told jurors in San Francisco on Tuesday.
“For years they trained engineers to act more as businesspeople than as engineers,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Schenk said in closing arguments of PG&E’s 5½-week criminal trial. “The motive was profit over safety.”
Steven Bauer, PG&E’s lead attorney, retorted that the case prosecutors presented was “an elaborate second-guessing exercise” of a company and its engineers trying their best to follow laws that were often unclear. Despite a six-year investigation designed “to make PG&E look terrible,” he said, prosecutors failed to show that the utility knowingly engaged in unsafe practices.
PG&E is charged with 11 felony violations of laws requiring pipeline operators to gather information on potential hazards, conduct inspections and tests for risks, and maintain accurate records. Prosecutors dismissed an additional record-keeping charge Tuesday without explanation.
The company is also charged with obstructing a federal investigation of the September 2010 explosion and fire that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood. PG&E, already fined $1.6 billion by the state Public Utilities Commission for the explosion, faces an additional $562 million in fines if convicted of all criminal charges. The money would be paid by shareholders rather than ratepayers.Share This Post
JULY 26, 2016 6:54 PM
The California Assembly makes rare moves for institutional reform, targeting the State Bar and Public Utilities Commission, but one effort was stymied and it’s unclear whether the PUC has gotten the message that change is needed.
Surfers pass in front of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California. The Public Utilities Commission is reopening the issue of whether ratepayers or utility shareholders should bear the major financial burden of closing the plant. Gregory Bull Associated Press file
BY DAN WALTERS
The California Assembly has shown a certain appetite for institutional reform this year – noteworthy because it happens so rarely in the Capitol.
One example is the Assembly’s refusal to approve a routine increase in State Bar dues without long-overdue structural changes in the quasi-public agency that licenses and supposedly regulates the legal profession.
It passed a fairly strong State Bar reform bill, only to see the legal establishment, including Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, persuade key senators to stall action.
An even more important example is the Assembly’s strongly bipartisan, 61-9 vote in June to overhaul the California Public Utilities Commission.
The PUC, like the State Bar, has become arrogantly insular, riven by scandal and too cozy with the huge utility monopolies it is supposed to regulate.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11, carried by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, would have authorized the Legislature to reallocate the PUC’s duties, and, as Gallo said, “treat the PUC like any other executive branch agency.”
The Assembly’s overwhelming approval of ACA 11 sent a shock through the utility industry and moved Gov. Jerry Brown to embrace PUC reforms he had previously shunned.Share This Post
Energy funded PAC accused of inserting ‘racially divisive’ ad into state San Bernardino Assembly race
BY PATRICK MCGREEVY
July 26, 2016, 11:59 a.m. 11:48 A.M.
A political committee funded by oil companies has launched ads on the Internet attacking state Sen. Connie Leyva of Chino for opposing the reelection of Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown of San Bernardino, a fellow Democrat, and questioning Levya’s party loyalty.
A spokesman for Leyva shot back that the ads are "racially divisive" and "reprehensible."
The advertisements on YouTube are the latest episode in a skirmish that has divided Democrats in the state over Brown, a moderate who helped stall a provision of last year's climate change bill that would have cut petroleum use significantly in California.
Leyva has endorsed Democrat Eloise Reyes against Brown, while the incumbent is backed by other prominent Democrats including Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León of Los Angeles and Sens. Bill Monning of Carmel, Mike McGuire of Healdsburg and Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles.
The ads, put up without coordination with Brown's campaign, were paid for by the Coalition to Restore California’s Middle Class, which is funded by energy companies including Chevron Corp., Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp.
“California State Sen. Connie Leyva is leading a campaign to defeat Cheryl Brown, an African American candidate endorsed by the California Democratic Party and Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers,” says one of the Internet ads.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-87960884/Share This Post
By VICTORIA BURNETTJULY 26, 2016
Many landowners in La Ventosa, Mexico, a windy town in the southern state of Oaxaca, leased their property to Spanish companies for wind turbines. Some residents living in their shadow see a changed landscape but no financial benefits.
Kirsten Luce for The New York Times
LA VENTOSA, Mexico — At night, Juan Piñeda López hears the hum of a wind turbine that churns 300 yards away from his adobe house. Sometimes he catches the stench of lubricant that spews down the turbine’s mast.
Beyond that, Mr. Piñeda said, the forest of turbines that has sprung up on the plains here in the southern state of Oaxaca in recent years barely affects him.
And that is the problem.
Eight years after Mexico embraced the fight against climate change, setting off a wind rush in Oaxaca’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec, people in poor, indigenous communities are divided over the benefits of the green revolution.
Some are even turning wind projects away. More than 1,000 residents of Juchitán de Zaragoza, a mainly indigenous Zapotec city about 20 miles from Mr. López’s home in La Ventosa, have blocked plans to build one of Latin America’s biggest wind farms close to the city.
The case underscores the need to balance the scramble for clean energy with the concerns of those whose lands produce it, said Beatriz Olivera, an engineer who for several years led the climate change campaign for Greenpeace Mexico.Share This Post
July 26, 2016 Updated: July 26, 2016 7:00am
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press
Water from the Sacramento River, shown here near Courtland (Sacramento County) would be shipped south via two giant tunnels under a $16 billion plan.
By the time the Sacramento River winds its more-than-400-mile course from the slopes of Mount Shasta past the state capital, it’s well into its leisurely stride, running slowly by fields of sweet corn, tomatoes and alfalfa.
But this lazy stretch of river, just south of Sacramento, is a metaphorical whitewater. The rural Sacramento County town of Hood, at the north end of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, is where state and federal authorities have planned the starting point of California’s hotly debated tunnel project — a $16 billion proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to improve water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, as well as parts of the Bay Area.
On Tuesday in Sacramento, state regulators are set to begin what are expected to be six months of hearings on whether Hood’s riverbanks are an appropriate place to draw water from the Sacramento River.
While the question hinges on a handful of technical issues — mainly if water rights will be violated, and if the project will harm threatened fish — the meetings by the state water board mark the first real public debate on the project and are certain to stoke broader concerns about who’s getting California’s precious water, and who’s not.Share This Post
And the biggest one of the year may still be on the way.
by Jason Deign
July 25, 2016
It's a busy time for corporate deals in the energy sector. Multibillion-dollar mergers are happening across the U.S. utility sector. PV monitoring companies are trading hands at a brisk pace. But what of energy storage?
The stakes are rising in the nascent storage market as technologies approach commercialization and business models get more sophisticated.
The first six months of 2016 highlighted a growing trend of major enterprise investors jumping into the market, according to a consensus of analyst groups consulted by GTM. What follows are the three most talked-about deals so far -- plus a few honorable mentions.
Total and Saft
Until Elon Musk announced Tesla's plan to buy SolarCity, it looked like the biggest corporate deal of the year for energy storage would end up being Total's acquisition of battery maker Saft Groupe for $1.1 billion.Share This Post