| Independently Powered Energy News

For the first time, the California grid operator has released a draft 20-year plan for a grid that supports total decarbonization of electricity in the state by 2045. The plan from the California Independent System Operator estimates a cost of $30.5 billion for new and upgraded high voltage lines needed to accommodate additions of 120 gigawatts of green power. The plan, which breaks from traditional 10-year planning horizons, projects a whopping peak load of 83.4 GW by 2040 with the growing electrification of appliances and vehicles. That peak is 28.5% higher than the one projected by the California Energy Commission. The grid operator foresees meeting that peak load by connecting to out-of-state wind turbines and wind resources off the coast of California to be developed. It also projects a huge increase in large solar projects, battery storage and in-state geothermal power resources to ensure reliability and a slashing of greenhouse gas emissions. Rooftop solar plays only a minor role. The document also assumes the phaseout of 15,000 MW of natural gas power plants over the next two decades. CAISO believes a modern grid will attract new clean power projects that now are unable to connect to the grid and be carried to where the demand is. “This transformation will not only drive significant investment in a technologically and geographically diverse fleet of [generation] resources, including storage but also significant transmission to accommodate all the new capacity being added,” states the high voltage expansion proposal. It received mixed reviews. Some take issue with the plan’s hefty $30.5 billion price tag and others welcomed its focus on providing a blueprint for accommodating 60% renewables by 2030 and 100% by 2045, as required by SB 100. “I applaud the tremendous efforts of the California Independent System Operator staff and leadership in putting this timely 20-year outlook forward,” said California Energy Commission Karen Douglas, whose agency participated in the plan development. “The CAISO 20-year plan is an important tool preparing for our future needs,” said Jan Smutny Jones, Independent Energy Producers executive director. The long-term investment plan will be paid over many years and “no doubt change over time.” Fereidoon Sioshansi, editor and president of Menlo Energy Economics, agreed the plan was significant, noting that Texas invested heavily in transmission to integrate more wind than any other state and to accommodate more solar resources. “California needs to do the same, and do it even better and faster." Others, however, questioned the cost. Calls for increased local green generation “The state can reduce the need for, and the huge costs associated with, transmission upgrades if we adopt policy reforms that harness decentralized, local solar and energy storage assets, both private and public,” Woody Hastings, Energy Program Manager of The Climate Center, told Current . He said state regulators should reform utility compensation to motivate them “to collaborate in good faith for distributed clean energy deployment.” Investor-owned utilities reap double-digit rates of return on transmission investments. CAISO’s projected need for 120 GW of new, non-fossil resources by 2040 estimates 53 GW will come from utility-scale solar, 37 GW from battery storage, 4 GW from storage that lasts eight hours or longer, 24 GW from wind and 2 GW from geothermal. It does note that 33 GW of local solar could be online by 2040, but the grid operator doesn’t count distributed resources in its supply forecasts. Other critics pointed to a Feb.1 analysis that took issue with a recent McKinsey report. McKinsey had projected high costs to reach net zero energy by 2050 across the globe. According to Karl Burkhart, deputy director at One Earth , a philanthropic organization focusing on limiting the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 C, McKinsey failed to account “for rapidly falling costs of clean technologies that combined with the existential threat of the climate crisis, will drive further innovation and economies of scale.” The same criticism is true of CAISO’s plan, that its plan does not factor in a fall in costs from technology advances, critics said. CAISO lowballs cost Jesus Arredondo, an energy consultant, said CAISO’s $30 billion cost was actually conservative. An honest discussion will reveal much higher costs, requiring policy stakeholders to “ask how much they are willing to burden the ratepayers” with 100% green power, he said. Other stakeholders agreed with Arredondo, noting the price tag appears to cover only capital costs, not operations and maintenance, nor investor-owned utility double-digit rates of return on transmission investments. Specifically, CAISO’s projected costs from now until 2040 factor in $11.65 billion to connect to 12,000 MW of wind power in Wyoming, New Mexico and Idaho, with another $8 billion to bring in 10,000 MW from California offshore wind projects. The remaining $10.7 billion is to expand and upgrade CAISO’s transmission highway. Another concern is that the state’s 2045 decarbonization horizon is too late to address the climate crisis. Some say the deadline should come 15 years earlier, in 2030. Peak load in the grid operator’s territory is projected at nearly 74,000 MW by 2040 with increasing electrification of buildings and cars, trucks and buses. The grid operator’s peak load in the late afternoon is estimated at 66,000 MW in two decades ’ time. The highest peak in the CAISO market to date has been 52,000 MW. Although they may not all agree on future peak load, the plan was developed together with the California Public Utilities Commission as well as the CEC. It calls for “significant 500 kV AC lines and high voltage DC wires including to “reinforce the existing CAISO footprint.” Commission Douglas said she looks forward to continuing the close collaboration “to ensure reliability and keep the state on track to meet our 100 percent clean electricity goal." Most transmission lines are alternating current because utility-scale power plants generate AC electricity and most electrical loads run on AC power. But DC lines are needed to move power long distances and from offshore wind turbines to the shore. “If the transmission line route is longer than about 300 miles, DC is a better option because AC lines have more line losses than DC for bulk power transfer,” George Culbertson, vice president of power delivery markets for HDR, told Power Magazine.” CAISO extended its planning horizon to 20 years because of the drive for clean energy and the time needed to permit and build transmission, a minimum of 8-10 years. The grid operator plans to work with stakeholders over this year to finalize the plan. It will hold a call on Feb. 7 to take input and address questions.

No Result