The Two Energy Revolutions Are Progressing in Tandem

Last year I wrote about the two major energy revolutions happening globally, the shale revolution--mainly in the US--and the renewable energy revolution, focused more on technologies than geography but with big concentrations in Europe and increasingly Asia and the Americas. Two stories in the Financial Times (registration/subscription required), which has lately been doing an excellent job covering energy, illustrate that we are still in the early days of both. Bigger changes lie ahead.

One story covers the development of the "South Central Oklahoma Oil Play", or SCOOP, an acronym that's new to me and, I suspect, many of my readers. Continental Oil, a major player in the Bakken and other shale oil resource areas, has apparently reported that SCOOP may contain up to 3.6 billion barrels (oil equivalent) of recoverable oil and gas. That's more oil than was produced in Alaska in the last 15 years, based on the graphic accompanying the article.

Along with the unconventional portions of the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico and Ohio's Utica shale, and with the reviving liquids production from Wyoming's Powder River Basin and elsewhere, the upside for US oil output still looks significant. Its economics may become challenging if oil prices remain weak for more than the next year or two, but our picture of oil and gas as mature resources may need to be revised.

The title of the other article, "US Solar and Wind Start to Outshine Gas" seized my attention. Its key quote is from the head of power, energy & infrastructure at investment bank Lazard: "We used to say some day solar and wind power would be competitive with conventional generation. Well, now it is some day"--at least for some technologies, in some locations, at larger scales.  The firm's latest analysis shows continued cost declines for wind and solar.

It also raises a very interesting and pertinent question about whether subsidies for residential-scale solar (i.e., rooftop PV, which remains much costlier than at utility scale) are "distorting the long-term energy planning process." That's a question we are likely to hear a lot more about when the current US 30% investment tax credit for solar equipment, which benefits higher-cost installations more than cheap ones, comes up for renewal. Nevertheless, solar power, particularly in combination with emerging energy storage solutions, looks increasingly likely to transform the utility landscape in the years ahead.

You may have noticed a decrease in my blogging frequency, recently. I've been preoccupied with project work and personal matters for the last couple months, but I should be back to my normal pace by October. There's certainly no shortage of topics worth discussing here.

Threats and Opportunities of Distributed Power Generation

• Rooftop solar panels aren't the only distributed generation technology that could challenge existing utility business models as it grows.
• Some power companies see DG as an opportunity and are entering this segment in ways that could prove challenging to their start-up competitors.

Two recent news stories highlighted different ways that utilities and large generating companies are beginning to respond to the emergence of distributed generation (DG) as more than back-up power. Arizona Public Service (APS) is launching its version of potentially the most challenging type of DG for utilities, rooftop solar. Meanwhile, Exelon Corp. announced an investment partnership with a provider of gas-powered fuel cells. The success of such ventures and the evolution of DG will have implications for electrical grid stability and our future energy mix, including the role of flexible, large-scale gas-fired generation.

APS is seeking regulatory approval for a program that might be characterized as free rooftop solar. In effect, they would lease approved homeowners' rooftops for $30 per month, in order to host a total of 20 MW of solar panels that would be owned and controlled by APS. The idea has generated some controversy, partly due to the utility's rocky relationship with the solar industry over issues like "net metering". 

The plan would enable homeowners who might not otherwise qualify for solar leasing from third parties to have solar installed on their homes, although they would apparently still receive their electricity through the meter from the grid, rather than mainly from the rooftop installation. That's a very different model from most DG approaches, though under current market conditions the net benefit to consumers reportedly would match or exceed that from solar leasing.

Exelon's announcement seems aimed at a different segment of the market, and based on a very different technology. The company would finance the installation of 21 MW of Bloom Energy's fuel cell generators at businesses in several states, including California. Bloom made quite a splash when it introduced its "energy servers", including a popular segment on "60 Minutes" in 2010.

Bloom's devices, which come in models producing either 100 kW or 200 kW, are built around solid oxide fuel cells.  At that scale they are too large for individual homes but suitable for many businesses. And because they are modular, they can be combined to meet the energy needs of larger offices or commercial facilities such as data centers. Unlike the fuel cells being deployed in limited numbers of automobiles, they do not require a source of hydrogen gas. Instead they run directly on natural gas from which hydrogen is extracted ("auto-reformed") inside the box.

In that respect, despite their novel technology, Bloom's servers are much closer than rooftop solar to traditional distributed energy, in which a customer owns or leases a small generator to which it supplies fuel. The advantages of Bloom's model are that its servers are designed for highly efficient 24x7 operation, without the expensive energy storage necessary to turn solar into 24x7 power, and with much lower greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution than a diesel generator.

In order to qualify as true zero-emission energy, these installations would need to be connected to a source of biogas, e.g., landfill gas, which effectively creates a closed emissions loop or recycles emissions that would have occurred elsewhere.  Even running on ordinary natural gas, the stated emissions of Bloom's energy servers are roughly a third less than the average emissions for US grid electricity, or 20% lower than the average for other natural gas generation. However, their emissions are over 10% higher than the 2012 average for California's grid.

I find it interesting that Exelon, the largest nuclear power operator in the US and owner of a full array of utility-scale gas, coal, hydro, wind and solar power, would make a high-profile investment in a technology that could ultimately slash the demand for its large central power plants. The company has invested in utility-scale solar and wind power, and as the press release indicated, is already involved in "onsite solar, emergency generation and cogeneration" via its Constellation subsidiary. In fact, it has apparently already achieved its goal of eliminating the equivalent of its 2001 carbon footprint.  However, the press release hints that something else might have attracted them to this deal.

Consider all the changes in store for the power grid. Baseload coal power is declining due to the combination of economic forces and strong emissions regulations such as the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Even some nuclear power plants, which have been the workhorses of the fleet for the last several decades, are facing premature retirement for non-operational reasons. At the same time, grid operators must integrate steadily growing proportions of intermittent renewable energy (wind and solar), along with increasingly sophisticated tools like demand response and energy storage. If any of this goes wrong, electric reliability will likely suffer.

From that perspective, Exelon's small--for them--step into DG also looks like a bet on the future value of reliability--"non-intermittent...reliable, resilient and distributed power." That's a bet even an old oil trader can understand: Uncertainty creates volatility, and volatility creates opportunities. I will be very interested to see how this turns out. 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

EPA's New CO2 Rules Create Opportunities for Natural Gas, for Now

• EPA's proposed rule for reducing CO2 emissions from power plants could increase natural gas demand in the utility sector by as much as 50%, at the expense of coal.
• Cutting emissions by regulation rather than legislation entails legal and political uncertainties that could hamper the investment necessary to meet EPA's targets.

Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency announced its proposal for regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from all currently operating US power plants. Unsurprisingly, initial assessments suggested it favors the renewable energy, energy efficiency and nuclear power industries--and especially natural gas--all at the expense of coal. However, the longer-term outcome is subject to significant uncertainties, because of the way this policy is being implemented.

EPA's proposed "Clean Power Plan" regulation would reduce CO2 emissions from the US electric power sector by 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, compared to 2005. Although it does not specify that the annual reduction of over 700 million metric tons of CO2--half of which had already been achieved by 2012--must all come from coal-burning power plants, such plants accounted for 75% of 2012 emissions from power generation.

It's worth recalling how we got here. In the last decade the US Congress made several attempts to enact comprehensive climate legislation, based on an economy-wide cap on CO2 and a system of trading emissions allowances: "cap and trade." In 2009 the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill, with its rather distorted version of cap and trade. It died in the US Senate, where the President's party briefly held a filibuster-proof supermajority.

The Clean Power Plan is the culmination of the administration's efforts to regulate the major CO2 sources in the US economy, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation. Although Administrator McCarthy touted the flexibility of the plan in her enthusiastic rollout speech and suggested that its implementation might include state or regional cap and trade markets for emissions, the net result will look very different than an economy-wide approach.

For starters, there won't be a cap on overall emissions, but rather a set of state-level performance targets for emissions per megawatt-hour generated in 2020 and 2030. If electricity demand grew 29% by 2040, as recently forecast by the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, the CO2 savings in the EPA plan might even be largely negated. EPA is banking on the widespread adoption of energy efficiency measures to avoid such an outcome.

Since we have many technologies for generating electricity, with varying emissions all the way down to nearly zero, many different future generating mixes could achieve the plan's goals, though not at equal cost or reliability. Ironically, since coal's share of power generation has declined from 50%  in 2005 to 39% as of last year, it could be done by replacing all the older coal-fired power plants in the US with state of the art plants using either ultra-supercritical pulverized coal combustion (USC ) or integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). 

That won't happen for a variety of reasons, not least of which is EPA's "New Source Performance Standards" published last November. That rule effectively requires new coal-fired power plants to emit around a third less CO2 than today's most efficient coal plant designs. That's only possibly if they capture and sequester (CCS) at least some of their emissions, a feature found in only a couple of power plants now under construction globally.

It's also questionable how the capital required to upgrade the entire US coal generating fleet could be raised. Returns on such facilities have fallen, due to competition from shale gas and from renewables like wind power with very low marginal costs--sometimes negative after factoring in tax credits. Some are interpreting EPA's aggressive CO2 target for 2020 and relatively milder 2030 step as an indication that the latter target could be made much more stringent, later.

So while coal is likely to remain an important  part of the US power mix in 2030, as the EPA's administrator noted, meeting these goals in the real world will likely entail a significant shift from coal to gas and renewable energy sources, while preserving roughly the current nuclear generating fleet, including those units now under construction.

If the entire burden of the shift fell to gas, it would entail increasing the utilization of existing natural gas combined cycle power plants (NGCC) and likely building new units in some states. In the documentation of its draft rules, EPA cited average 2012 NGCC utilization of 46%. Increasing utilization up to 75% would deliver over 600 million additional MWh from gas annually--a 56% increase over total 2013 gas-fired generation, exceeding the output of all US renewables last year--at an emissions reduction of around 340 million metric tons vs. coal. That would be just sufficient to meet the 30% emissions reduction target for the electricity demand and generating mix we had in 2013.

The incremental natural gas required to produce this extra power works out to about 4.4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year. That would increase gas consumption in the power sector by just over half, compared to 2013, and boost total US gas demand by 17%. To put that in perspective, US dry natural gas production has grown by 4.1 TCF/y since 2008.

EPA apparently anticipates power sector gas consumption increasing by just 1.2 TCF/y by 2020, and falling thereafter as end-use efficiency improves.  Fuel-switching is only one of the four Best System of Emission Reduction "building blocks" EPA envisions states using, including efficiency improvements at existing power plants, increased penetration of renewable generation, and demand-side efficiency measures. The ultimate mix will vary by state and be influenced by changes in gas, coal and power prices.

I mentioned uncertainties at the beginning of this post. Aside from the inevitable legal challenges to EPA's regulation of power plant CO2 under the 1990 Clean Air Act, its imposition by executive authority, rather than legislation, leaves future administrations free to strengthen, weaken, or even abandon this approach.

Since EPA's planned emission reductions from the power sector are large on a national scale (10% of total US 2005 emissions) but still small on a global scale (2% of 2013 world emissions) their long-term political sustainability may depend on the extent to which they succeed in prompting the large developing countries to follow suit in reducing their growing emissions.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

No Good Choices

I find myself in a foul mood concerning climate change, after a week that has seen US choices for managing our greenhouse gas emissions narrow to a trio of unappealing options. The long-awaited draft of a Senate bill on climate change issued by the Environment and Pubic Works Committee turned out to mirror most of the bad features of the distorted Waxman-Markey bill narrowly passed by the House in June. Adding insult to injury was the announcement by the Administrator of the EPA that her agency was preparing to regulate the greenhouse gases from large emitters--power plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities--as point-sources under the Clean Air Act as soon as next year. This leaves us with three poor choices: 1) a cap & trade system harnessed to the yoke of Congressional patronage and pork, 2) command-and-control regulations likely to extract emissions reductions from the highest-cost sources and thus having the most adverse impact on the economy, and 3) a status quo that will likely result in our emissions resuming their steady climb, once the economy recovers.

With regard to the Kerry-Boxer bill, designated as the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act"--no catchy "ACES" acronym there--I haven't had time to wade through its 801 pages, so I'll keep my comments brief. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the editors of the Washington Post, the bill does include a cap & trade mechanism for greenhouse gas emissions, though I can understand why they might not have looked for it under the obscure rubric of "Pollution Reduction and Investment Program". From my quick scan of that section, it strongly resembles the cap & trade aspects of Waxman-Markey, with the crucial difference that the allocation of emission allowances among various sectors has been left to other Senate committees to fill in. The only allocation clearly specified is that 25% of allowances should be auctioned, with the proceeds to go toward deficit reduction. As laudable as that sounds, I would merely note that every dollar raised by cap & trade that is not returned to taxpayers constitutes a new tax by another name and should be counted in the total tax burden on the productive economy.

Now let's turn to the EPA announcement, which has me even more concerned. Last week I received an emailed article from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU suggesting that under the Clean Air Act the EPA could create its own cap & trade system for greenhouse gases without requiring additional authorizing legislation. That briefly buoyed my hopes for a more pristine version of cap & trade, without the unseemly scramble to siphon off its proceeds to fund every pet project and cause of every Member or Senator whose vote was needed to pass the thing. Then I read Administrator Jackson's remarks describing the approach she has in mind, and I knew the EPA was applying its old pollution-abatement mentality to climate change, facilitiated by a Supreme Court ruling that unhelpfully labeled CO2 and other GHGs as pollutants. The new rule would impose New Source Review criteria on the greenhouse emissions from power plants, refineries and factories when they expand or modernize, and it parallels the Best Available Control Technology requirement that is at least logical for local air pollutants like SOx and NOx that result from fuel impurities and combustion byproducts, but that makes little sense when dealing with the results of the primary chemical reaction of combustion: C + O2 --> CO2.

With all due respect to Administrator Jackson, a fellow chemical engineer who I'm sure understands the technical side of this issue as well as I do, her remarks betray a deep misunderstanding of the economic consequences of regulating carbon this way. The key phrase in her comments, which focused on minimizing the impact on the small businesses she seeks to exclude from this ruling was, "...all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy," as if that "better part" didn't consume the electricity, fuels and raw materials produced by the part she proposes to regulate--presumably the "worst part" of our economy. The reality is that the costs imposed on large emitters will inevitably fall on those same small businesses when they pay their utility bills, buy fuel and other inputs, and when they seek to sell to consumers and other businesses equally burdened by these new, higher energy costs.

There is simply no getting around the fact that regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which amounts to charging a fee for something that has been free since the discovery of fire, is going to impose a burden on the entire economy. The principle behind cap & trade is the effort to make that burden as small as possible, by encouraging those parties with the lowest costs of emissions abatement to make the biggest cuts. Industrial emissions reductions are inherently more expensive than those in many other sectors, and we need a solution that unleashes the cheapest CO2 cuts, instead of forcing the most expensive ones to be done first.

I haven't given up entirely on the hope that the final outcome from the Senate might restore some sanity to the cap & trade provisions that Messrs. Waxman and Markey so deftly used to co-opt the biggest emitters into supporters, as we've seen with the recent fracturing of the US Chamber of Commerce on this issue. Utilities like Exelon, PG&E, and PNM Resources must realize that they are unlikely to get a better deal on emissions than under Waxman-Markey, and I don't blame them for advancing their interests. But that doesn't make this the best solution for the economy, or more importantly the best way to go about reducing the emissions responsible for humanity's contribution to climate change. And if the White House needs the threat of new EPA rules to have at least one flag to wave at the global climate conference in Copenhagen in December, in case the Congress fails to pass a Waxman-Markey/Kerry-Boxer hybrid by then, I understand that, too. However, that doesn't justify actually implementing those regulations and making the task of reducing our emissions harder and more costly.