Can the state meet its mandate to find alternative energy sources?
The first target is a year away, and no one is clear how to meet it, or even to measure progress. The legislature could tweak the 2006 law that created the requirement, but previous attempts have hit political walls.
Eric Guinther/Wikimedia Commons
State of Idaho
Washington's voters declared in 2006 that 15 percent of the state's electricity must come from alternative sources — wind, solar, biomass and others — by 2020.
The interim targets are 3 percent by Jan. 1, 2012, and 9 percent by 2016. So how will anyone know whether those targets are met? And what will happen if they are not? With the first deadline just over a year away, Washington officials have begun scratching their heads about how to answer those questions.
"No one is sure how this one will quite play out," said Howard Schwartz , a senior policy analyst at the Washington Department of Commerce.
State audit manager Jasen McEathron, who is in charge of finding a way to ensure compliance by publicly owned utilities, said: "It's going to create some challenges. ... It's a new area for us."
While the Secretary of State's office will monitor publicly owned utilities, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will track investor-owned utilities, and the state's Commerce Department will keep tabs on two electric power cooperatives. The Secretary of State's office and the other state agencies say they plan to work out a mutually agreeable monitoring system in 2011.
Overall, 17 power utilities in Washington are covered by Initiative 937, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2006. Under the law, any utility with more than 25,000 customers must comply. The law's purpose is to cut down on the emission of greenhouse gases by generating more electricity from renewable resources.
At least 20 states plus Washington, D.C., have similar laws on their books. The only other Northwest state with such a law is Montana, which has to hit the 15 percent mark by 2015.
In 2006, the initiative's supporters included numerous environmental groups, the Washington Public Utility District Association, the state Democratic Party, Republicans for Environmental Protection, some labor organizations, the League of Women Voters, U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, plus U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee, Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, and Jim McDermott.
Opponents included the Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association, even though most of its members are too small to be affected; Peninsula Light Co.; some individual electric cooperatives; the PUDs of Benton, Franklin, Cowlitz, Lewis, and Mason counties; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, plus nine Washington-based chambers of commerce, including several major Puget Sound ones; the Washington Farm Bureau; and Weyerhaeuser, Boeing, and Boise Cascade.
Despite the legislation's seemingly ambitious goals, the law provides a backup plan for the 17 utilities that must meet the upcoming 3 percent goal: They are allowed to buy and sell renewable energy credits. Washington utilities falling short of the 3 percent, 9 percent, and 15 percent targets will be able to buy credits from renewable power sources elsewhere in the Northwest. Those renewable energy credits are expected to be a significant factor in enabling some Washington utilities to meet their targets.
Right now, averaged across a year, roughly 23.7 percent of the Northwest's electricity comes from coal, natural gas and nuclear power, according to the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. The department's 2009 Biennial Energy Report (scroll to Page 34 of the report here) estimates that almost 73 percent of the region's power comes from hydroelectric dams — ironically considered "renewable" in other states, but not so in Washington under I-937. Another 2 percent comes from wind power, and the rest comes from a mishmash of other sources. Solar power is so small it doesn't register on the state's breakdown.
A significant portion of Washington's wind power is currently sold to California, while this state hangs on to its cheaper home-grown hydropower. California has a legal target of obtaining 20 percent of its power from renewable resources by 2017. When 2012 arrives, much of Washington's wind power is expected to be kept in this state to enable its utilities to reach their 3 percent targets.
To understand the lopsided nature of how Washington's energy is generated, consider these numbers: The Bonneville Dam near Portland can produce 1,050 megawatts of power at maximum capacity, and the Columbia Generating Station nuclear reactors can provide 1,150 megawatts. By contrast, 454 wind turbines near Walla Walla can create just 104 megawatts. A proposed major solar power site near Cle Elum would produce a maximum 73 megawatts.
Hydropower also is currently the cheapest resource, at $60 per megawatt-hour, according to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. But there is little likelihood of building new dams, and limits exist on how current ones can be tweaked to improved production, the council said.
Wind power costs $89 to $129 per megawatt-hour. But its production is erratic because it depends on winds blowing. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has two wind turbine complexes and a third on the drawing board. The two existing ones generate electricity 30 to 35 percent of the time, said PSE spokesman Roger Thompson.
Solar power costs roughly $280 per megawatt-hour, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council report said. Construction of at least two new Washington solar power plants are in the works — one in the mountainous forest near Cle Elum, where sunlit days occur slightly less often than the national average, and another at the Hanford nuclear reservation, near sunnier-than-average Richland.
The Northwest power council reported that several other alternative power sources produce a small fraction of 1 percent of the Northwest's electricity, with little potential for major growth. Tidal energy from Puget Sound is still in the experimental stage.
Washington's legislature is allowed to modify initiatives beginning two years after they pass. But the state Senate and House have tried twice, without success, to tinker with I-937.
In both the 2009 and 2010 sessions, utility interests wanted more flexibility to avoid spending on higher-priced alternative energy sources, which they said would increase rates for customers. But environmental interests would accept those modifications only if the target percentages also would be increased, washingtonstatewire.com reported in February. Neither side would budge, and the original initiative has stayed intact.
"It's an enormously complicated issue," Erik Poulsen, lobbyist for the Washington Public Utilities Districts Association, told washingtonstatewire.com. "We are wrestling with the question of whether the benefits of the bill are worth the price of a bump in standards."
Ed Brost, general manager of the Franklin County Public Utility District, described I-937 to washingtonstatewire.com as a "windfall for wind power act."
Meanwhile, washingtonstatewire.com quoted environmental leaders in the the 2010 legislative session as fearing that the utilities and business interests might water down energy conservation and efficiency measures in the initiative. It also quoted them as contending that a rebounding economy could make the utilities' economic predictions less dire over the next few years.
Danielle Dixon, senior policy associate for the Northwest Energy Coalition, which backed I-937, said, "I'd be very surprised if it does not come up again in the next session."
State Rep. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, chairman of the House Technology, Energy and Communications Committee, said he would "probably" introduce a bill early in the 2011 session, to address some financial concerns utilities have about Initiative 937. "There may be some wrangling. But I don't think it will be as contentious as before," McCoy said.
However, State Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Kitsap County, chairman of the Senate's Environment, Water and Energy Committee, recalled previous I-937 legislative debates, when consensus was blocked by wildly competing views on how the initiative should be tweaked.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
The law should be changed to include hydro power as renewable. The Legislature has no qualms about modifying or repealing other citizen initiatives, why not this one? The fact that this law has remained uncorrected shows that this is more feel-good pop-enviro psychotherapy than energy policy. As a Peninsula Light customer, my light bill has gone up dramatically so that my local Pierce County customer-owned utility can put up windmill farms east of the mountains, while my power comes from Cushman dam, less than an hour's drive away. This is sheer lunacy.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate
The point of passing this thing was to improve our carbon footprint. Simply deciding that hydro counts as renewable improves nothing. Everything stays the same.
It would seem from the numbers in this report that wind is the far better resource in cloudy Washington than solar. That should be where we focus.
We'll all be thankful we did this when carbon fuels jump in price.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 10:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Hydro doesn't add to the "carbon footprint" either. So why treat it the same as energy sources which do? If 100% (rather than 73%) of our power came from hydroelectricity, we'd have a zero carbon footprint. A cynic might speculate that the only reason hydro power isn't considered "green" is because people can make a profit producing it.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate
A cynic might speculate that the only reason hydro power isn't considered "green" is because people can make a profit producing it.
Or that the "wrong" people are making a profit producing it.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 2:05 p.m. Inappropriate
>The law's purpose is to cut down on the emission of greenhouse gases
Actually, there isn't a single word in the law referring to GHG reductions. Mandating a percentage of 'renewable' energy in an attempt to back into GHG reductions is an asinine way to proceed.
Why not have a 'performance based' approach where each utility must calculate it's present 'footprint', then meet the Governor's Climate Change Challenge reduction targets?
Too simple, logical and straight-forward?
Claiming we should 'focus' on wind ignores the variability and unpredictability which requires wind generation to be 'integrated' into the grid by another (reliable) resource for the 70% (+) of the time the wind doesn't blow.
According to BPA the current hydro system can 'integrate' about 3,500 MW of wind, which should be exceeded this year. At that point utilities will have to build gas combustion turbines as backup, which will have the 'unintended consequence' of actually INCREASING GHG emissions in the name of trying to reduce them.
This is a better result than 'counting' hydro how?
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 3:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Jon Sayer said, "We'll all be thankful we did this when carbon fuels jump in price."
Maybe.
Even if carbon fuels become more expensive, they will still be cheaper than "alternative" energy sources. And, if there were any less costly alternatives, private industry would be leading the research and funding if there was any profit to be made.
Electric cars? They are not really greener and cost a heck of a lot more - the savings to make up for the initial high price-tag just don't pencil out for most folks. Wind? Dream on. Nuclear? Now there's an idea that might work, but is too politically incorrect to be feasible.
There are lots of projects that need state tax dollars for funding. Given the financial crisis the State of Washington is facing, this silly law belongs on the bottom of the priority list - or better yet, scrapped entirely.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 6:53 p.m. Inappropriate
It's tough to meet the 2020 deadline, but it's possible. More and more smart energy solutions are emerging nowadays. Solar power and wind power turbines should be promoted by the government for the consuming public. Wind turbines may not replace main energy sources at once, but they can help reduce energy costs and the toll on the environment. If more people used these alternative sources of energy in those homes, then the 15% goal would be achievable. A good example of an energy efficient tool is this Micro Wind Turbine at http://www.organicmechanic.com/product/micro-wind-turbine. (link is non-promotional).
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 9:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Here are a couple good articles on wind power. I will put them in 2 separate posts. The first,
"Wind Power Won’t Cool Down the Planet
Often enough it leads to higher carbon emissions."
http://friendsoflanai.org/?page_id=340
"A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won’t result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they’ll be so small as to be almost meaningless.
"None of it will lead to major cuts in carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, wind blows only intermittently and variably. Second, wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators, rather than that from plants burning more carbon-intensive coal.
"Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (called “cycling”). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don’t, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase. A car analogy helps explain: An automobile that operates at a constant speed—say, 55 miles per hour—will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
"Recent research strongly suggests how this problem defeats the alleged carbon-reducing virtues of wind power. In April, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide” emissions.
"Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. In 2008, however, the EIA reported subsidies to oil and gas totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Wind subsidies are more than 200 times as great as those given to oil and gas on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced."
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 9:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Second article from 12-22-10 in the Wall Street Journal:
"A Wind Power Boondoggle"
"After 30 months, countless TV appearances, and $80 million spent on an extravagant PR campaign, T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: The wind energy business isn't a very good one.
"The Dallas-based entrepreneur, who has relentlessly promoted his "Pickens Plan" since July 4, 2008, announced earlier this month that he's abandoning the wind business to focus on natural gas.
"There's more bad news on the horizon for Mr. Pickens and others who have placed big bets on wind: Low natural gas prices may persist for years. Last month, the International Energy Agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said that the world is oversupplied with gas and that "the gas glut will be with us 10 more years." The market for natural-gas futures is predicting that gas prices will stay below $6 until 2017.
"So what is Mr. Pickens planning to do with all the wind turbines he ordered? He's hoping to foist them on ratepayers in Canada, because that country has mandates that require consumers to buy more expensive renewable electricity."
Seems like a much smarter way to reduce greenhouse gases would be to replace coal-burning power plants with natural gas-burning power plants.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 9:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Oops. Here is the link to that second article. I only quoted a few paragraphs from it.
http://robertbryce.com/node/395
Posted Wed, Dec 29, 11:56 a.m. Inappropriate
>Solar power and wind power turbines should be
>promoted by the government for the consuming public.
You don't consider the current 30% tax credit and net metering requirements as promoting it now?
>Wind turbines may not replace main energy
>sources at once, but they can help reduce
>energy costs and the toll on the environment.
According to this article, wind is 50% to 100% higher in cost than hydro. Solar is 400% to 500% higher. How does that reduce energy costs? If the backup generation turns out to increase emissions, how does that reduce the toll on the environment?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.