Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Questions after 5/8 BOS meeting

Expand Messages
  • George M Coladonato
    In response to the many requests for additional information after yesterdays BOS meeting I am combing issues requested and sending it out as a package in hopes
    Message 1 of 1 , May 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to the many requests for additional information after yesterdays BOS meeting I am combing issues requested and sending it out as a package in hopes it will address issues you had not considered:
      We looked at how these matters, energy independence and freedom from fossil fuels, were addressed elsewhere:
       
      These include:
      •      Distributed Generation (DG),
      •      Community Choice Aggregation (CCA),
      The County performed a study of Community Choice Aggregation in 2005.  We are in the process of exploring consulting services to update the 2005 study to address CCA in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County and also CCA for the entire region.  I anticipate the studies will be completed in 2013, pending approval of funding and contracting with a consultant.  
       
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      “Dear Sir,
      It is very encouraging that the 2009 Strategic Energy Plan is going through an update. Could you please provide me with information as in San Diego can a CCA be formed for the back country.”
       
      Peter W. Livingston, P.E., CEM, LEED AP/BD+C
      Energy & Sustainability Manager - County of San Diego
      5560 Overland Avenue, 4th Floor, Suite 410
      San Diego, CA 92123-1294
      Phone (858) 694-2624
      Fax (858) 694-8929
      Cell (858) 688-9959
       

      •      Renewable Energy Secure Communities ( RESCO).  The Borrego micro-grid pilot project by SDG&E can be done by the private sector as was done at the successful UCSD Virtual Power Plant (VPP) project.
      •      Feed in Tariff (FITs),
                  •      DG interconnections (Rule 21) that are transparent, cost effective,  timely and non- discriminatory:

      Feed-in Tariff Breakthrough in Iowa?

      March 11, 2013
      by Paul Gipe

      Proposal Four Times Comparable Size of Los Angeles DWP’s Solar FIT

      Comparable to Gainesville, Florida’s Annual Per Capita Rate

      Payment for Wind to be Based on Utility’s Rate of Return

      Could the conservative heartland state of Iowa breach the dam holding back feed-in tariffs for renewable energy in the US when self-styled “progressive” states such as California continue to dawdle? That is the possible implication of a vote by the Agriculture Committee of Iowa’s state Senate Thursday, 7 March 2013.
      Political observers and the media often overlook mid-western states in deference to presumably more trendsetting states on the west coast. However, many  of the progressive movements in US history have grown out of grassroots campaigns in the nation’s heartland. The same could be true for feed-in tariffs.
      The bill, SSB 1234, has a long ways to go should it ever become law, and the odds against it, as in most other states, are very long as powerful forces begin aligning against it. Nevertheless, the bill now moves to the Senate floor.
      Significantly, the bill passed the Agriculture Committee unanimously. That is, the bill not only received the support of Democrats in the Democratically controlled chamber, but also support by Republicans on the committee. This bodes well for at least consideration by the Republican controlled House should the bill pass the Senate.
      In another departure for much of the current discussion across the country and in particular on proposals for feed-in tariffs, SSB 1234 is not about solar Photovoltaics. No, the bill is aimed at distributed wind energy and is limited to projects less than 20 MW.
      Iowa knows a lot about wind energy and it is comfortable with the technology. In 2012, Iowa produced 24.5% of generation by in-state wind energy, far more than the one-time leader California’s 5%. Even in absolute numbers, Iowa’s 14 TWh of wind generation exceeded that of California’s 10 TWh in 2012.
      However, nearly all wind energy in Iowa is found in large wind power plants developed by multinational utility companies. Only a very small percentage of Iowa’s wind generation is produced by small, distributed projects and even less is owned by Iowans themselves.
      The bill allows distributed wind projects to account for one-half of the annual growth in residential electricity consumption. One estimate is that this could be up to 60 MW per year. If true, Iowa’s proposal is four times greater than the much heralded, some would say over hyped, feed-in tariff program of Los Angeles’ Department of Water & Power that is limited to 20 MW per year.
      Iowa’s SSB 1234 is a milestone in renewable policy proposals in the US since Tea Party reactionaries seized legislatures across the country in 2010. As one activist suggested, this could finally be a sign of brightening fortunes for feed-in tariffs.
      Unlike advocates in other states, where solar only bills monopolize feed-in tariff discussion, renewable proponents in Iowa are more inclusive. Proponents of SSB 1234 hope to add biomass and solar once the bill reaches the floor of the Senate.
      One of the bill’s key features is using the connecting utility’s regulated rate of return in calculating the tariff that would be paid under the standard offer contract. Renewable advocates have long proposed that distributed or locally-owned renewable should be paid a tariff that includes calculation of a rate of return equal to that granted electric utilities. In most countries and in most proposals in North America, however, regulators use a much lower rate of return for investment in distributed renewable than the utilities receive themselves. Sometimes the return acceptable to regulators for distributed renewable is half that received by regulated utilities.

      Summary of Key Features

      Program cap: ½ of annual retail electricity consumption growth
      Project cap: 20 MW
      Geographic limit: only on agricultural land
      Interconnection: mandatory for utilities
      Tariff determination: based on cost to utility, inclusive of the utility’s regulated rate of return
      Contract term: 10 years
      Review: biannual 
                                         Iowa Considering Feed-in Tariffs (2012 Proposal)
      This feed-in tariff news update is sponsored by the http://www.wind-works.org/images/World_Future_Council_logo-72x40x150.jpg, and the David Blittersdorf Family Foundation in cooperation with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The views expressed are those of Paul Gipe and are not necessarily those of the sponsors.
      Paul Gipe 661 325 9590, 661 472 1657 mobilepgipe@..., http://t.ymlp305.net/jjbhakaqujuaaauwuaxauy/click.php

      •      CPUC 218 allowing one parcel to 'sell' power to two immediately adjacent parcels who could each conceivably sell to two additional immediately adjacent parcels and so on in a daisy chain arrangement.  This allows sharing of economies of scale of wind.
      •      CAISO Ancillary Services (A/S).  The California market is developing such that these 'services' (frequency/voltage regulation, spinning reserve, black start and deferral of Transmission & Distribution upgrades). These benefits can be monetized at the wholesale level bi-passing the monopoly utility. This is currently being done in the Pennsylvania Jersey Maryland (PJM) Independent System Operator ISO) service territory.
      •      Private ownership of distributed storage as encouraged under the CPUC Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).
       
      These programs while still fluid and have put the world on a path to renewable energy and energy independence.
       
      Information on these programs is readily available with a little effort on the wonderful web.
       
      Aquapontic farming is changing how food can be produced locally in a non polluting manner and reduces transportation costs.
       
      Energy Storage:
      GE Wins Order for Three Wind Turbines With Storage Technology
      By Christopher Martin - May 1, 2013 6:21 AM PT
      General Electric Co. (GE), the biggest U.S. supplier of wind turbines, will supply three systems that include battery storage to Invenergy LLC for a Texas wind farm.
      The agreement is part of an 86-turbine order that Chicago- based Invenergy plans to install at its Goldthwaite Wind Energy facility in Mills County, Texas, GE said today in a statement.
      It’s the first order for the 2.5-120 Brilliant turbine that Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE announced in January, incorporating short-term power-storage capabilities. The system uses software to analyze wind speeds and retains excess power during gusty periods that’s fed to the grid when breezes wane.
      Renewable-energy developers are showing increasing interest in storage technology to offset the intermittent availability of wind and sunshine, Keith Longtin, GE’s general manager for wind products, said in the statement.
      Integrating batteries in turbines will let wind-farm operators boost “efficiency and short-term predictability,” Longtin said.
      To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at cmartin11@...
      To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@...
       
      Regulatory Changes
       
      Recent reporting by Morgan Lee of the Union Tribune provides two examples of recent regulatory changes that benefit Combined Wind Storage Projects.
      1.      Among the slashed requests: $29.8 million for energy storage projects, designed to even out the availability of solar-generated electricity and other renewable power.
       
      The CPUC is encouraging alternative models of storage ownership.  This is certainly not the sole reason for the denial. At the same time as the CPUC is providing the richest (perhaps the only) incentives in the US for distributed storage under the SGIP program.  Policy goal is to encourage innovation of technology, ownership models and operations.  SCE and CCSE are under pressure for not being able to spend the ratepayer $ set aside for this program.  So, the political system has spoken and now is time to act.
       
      2.      Also rejected was SDG&E’s plan to deploy $5.2 million worth of public charging facilities for electric vehicles. The judge has backed the commission’s prohibition on utility ownership of car-charging infrastructure.
      So, again the Commission has chosen not to open the market to competition and innovation.  Wind is a good fit with charging stations as it produces energy at night.  Solar is not a good fit as A.) it is more expensive and B.) the energy is better used to reduce the peak load as a solar production profile is reliably correlated to the peak system load.
       
       
       Here are 2 good articles on Vanadium technology and storage market trends.
      http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE91L14C20130222?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
      http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/vanadium-redox-gaining-ground-in-energy-storage
       

       
       
       
      Bird Kills:

      Wind Turbines & Birds Myth

      I'll state right up front that in the past, some wind turbines in avian flight paths did have a track record for killing birds. In fact, bird lovers used to call these "avian Cuisinarts" in order to get their point across.
       
       
       
      Since around the year 2000, however, the design of utility scale wind turbines has changed greatly with lower blade speeds and more visibility. The assumption that wind farms are still today killing a large number of birds has turned into a myth.
      Sure, those with a political agenda of not wanting a wind farm to go up in their neighborhood will still cite wind turbine bird kills as if it were current fact. But, along with the few bird strikes that do occur to turbines, the critics rarely compare that number to the number of automobiles flying down the highways, killing birds or the number of airline bird strikes.
      The very nature of many birds is to live a haphazard and short life. About 30-percent of all birds don't make it past their first year of life due to collisions with different parts of nature such as boulders, mountainsides or falling from tree branches.
      In fact, older birds are commonly killed every day by flying into non-natural structures such as skyscrapers and the windows of other buildings, homes, trees, electrical fences and many other places. A typical 1.5 mW wind turbine with large surface area, slow moving blades is more likely to receive a bird strike on its shaft as it is on one of the blades.
      The top threat to birds outside of wind turbines include the electrical grid, vehicle collisions, buildings and residences, communication towers, pesticides, cats, jet engines, smoke stacks and bridges.
      A study in the 1980's found that 69 million birds migrated through the San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, California. Of this number, only 38 bird deaths were attributed to the local wind turbines.
      This means the bird mortality rate due to wind turbines in a migratory pathway was statistically insignificant. More birds were killed in one moment in the jetliner crash that landed safely in New York's Hudson River than were killed over one year in the San Gorgonio Pass in California.
      The bird-o-matic myth actually started with a reality and that is at the Altamont Pass in California where older, smaller faster spinning turbines have been used. This one wind farm counts for a disproportionately high number of avian deaths. Constructed in the 1970s the Altamont Pass wind turbines contain around 4900 smaller generators that are gradually being replaced with larger, slower bladed turbines.
      Wind turbine manufacturers have responded to criticism first by constructing larger wind generators with slower blades. They have also experimented with different colored paints and reflective devices to ward off birds. The sound of the turbine itself is another early warning system to birds flying nearby.
      The myth of wind turbines killing birds continues to this day. The reality, however, is that wind turbines are a safe and clean method to produce renewable energy and are necessary if we are to break our addiction to foreign oil.
       
       
       
       
      Consultants to the Wind Power Industry
      on birds and other wildlife issues.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      What Kills Birds?
      http://www.currykerlinger.com/images/pic-snowyowl150L.jpg
      Human Causes of Bird Fatalities
      Curry & Kerlinger has compiled the following information from environmental organizations and government agencies.
      This list is meant to inform the public and to put wind turbine fatalities in perspective.
      Glass Windows
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.