Rosen powerfully and accurately makes clear Rosen’s professional negligence:
It’s not naive of him. It’s malpractice. Chuck Todd’s entire brandis based on the claim that he understands politics. Since 2007 he has been NBC’s political director, which means he has influence over all coverage. He is literally the in-house expert on the subject. You don’t get to claim you are naive about politics when you have these kinds of positions. It would be like a chief risk officer saying, “I didn’t understand the gamble we were taking.” Well, that’s your job
This is only a taste of Rosen’s devastating (and merited) Todd takedown as evidenced by paragraph lead sentences:
It’s not that he was naive. He did not care to listen.
It’s not naiveté. It’s a willful blindness to what the Republican Party had become.
He’s not naive. He’s an insider who thought his read was better.
It’s not naive. It’s a lack of imagination, a failure of insight.
Rosen has been one of the clearest voices (great example) about the damaging nature of ‘both sides’ reporting and a key point is that Todd’s and Meet The Press’ “entire brand” rests on bothsiderism. And, since that is the ‘brand’ and operating motif, Todd and his producers remain clueless about what to do in the face of #Cult45 Republican disinformation (which Tood calls, misleadingly and erroneously, “misinformation”).
A key premise for Meet the Press is symmetry between the two major political parties. The whole show is built on that. But in the information sphere — the subject of Chuck Todd’s confessions — asymmetry has taken command. The right wing ecosystem for news does not operate like the rest of the country’s news system. …
So what will they do now? My answer: they have no earthly idea. This is what I mean by an epistemological crisis. Chuck Todd has essentially said that on the right there is an incentive structure that compels Republican office holders to use their time on Meet the Press for the spread of disinformation. So do you keep inviting them on air to do just that? If so, then you break faith with the audience and create a massive problem in real time fact-checking. If not, then you just broke the show in half. There is simply nothing in the playbook at Meet the Press that tells the producers what to do in this situation. As I have tried to show, they didn’t arrive here through acts of naiveté, but by willful blindness, malpractice among the experts in charge, an insider’s mentality, a listening breakdown, a failure of imagination, and sheer disbelief that the world could have changed so much upon people paid so well to understand it.
Spot on commentary, but with a significant flaw
As so often, Rosen has provided a searing assessment of a major journalistic situation that would, in a rational world, lead to reflection and, eventually, action to address the challenge.
Rosen’s discussion, however, has a glaring (likely unintended) misdirection. Reading through Rosen’s devastating critique of Todd suggests that Republican disinformation (willingness to show up in venues like Meet The Press, stare into the camera, and lie) and desire to attack (discredit) “the Press” provides an impression that this is somehow newly born, perhaps knowable only by about 2012 or so.
Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote, “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Chuck Todd as NBC’s political director, and Meet the Press as its premiere politics show could have taken seriously what these exemplary members of the Washington establishment were saying back in 2012.
Truth be told, Mann’s and Ornstein’s excellent OPED could have been written much earlier but “establishment” voices fought coming to that conclusion, openly, then just as Todd has resisted coming to it until just recently.
The Republican War on Science was treated, by journalists, writ large with ‘both sides’ reporting. For decades, when it came to Global Warming/climate change reporting, scientists were ‘balanced’ by fossil fuel-funded advocates paid to undermine science and confuse the situation. For decades, (primarily) Republican politicians have parroted this deceit. For decades, the leading lights of the GOP have been willing to look cameras in the eye and lie when it comes to climate change on the (all too often) rare occasion when the subject was raised by the Todds of the media elites. These Republicans would not just parrot the lies but would be ready to attack and seek to discredit (especially within their base) journalists who accurately reported when it came to climate change.
Science denialism could reasonably be seen as the testing and training ground, the core precedent, for the ubiquitous GOP disinformation amid the time of Trump.
Blatant denial of reality, refusal to give credence to authority, willingness to spout nonsense worked. Republican politicians didn’t pay a price for their deceit. Journalists, most frequently, didn’t challenge these politicians’ dishonest and, often, ludicrous misrepresentations about what is arguably the most important issue facing humanity. Media outlets did not make clear the level of ignorance and dishonesty. This deceit strengthened, in all too many cases, their (both individual politician’s and the Party’s) brand and strengthened the base’s allegiance. A key tool of any cult is to get followers to believe the cult over their lying eyes: this is what the GOP has demanded (and secured) from its base for a long, long time when it comes to science, when it comes to climate change and the (every more urgent) need for action.
Success in science denial made clear that falsehoods work and that too many media outlets will help in the effort. Science Denialism laid the groundwork for birtherism, for Benghazi uber alles, for the ubiquitous disinformation that is the Republican brand today.
Rosen would have well served his readership, and overall discussion of media practices, by discussing science denialism and journalistic enabling of it was a leading indicator (element) of Republican “misinformation” that Chuck Todd has admitted being “naive” about.
For Christmas 2019, Todd has admitted that it is a problem that Republicans are so willing, so eager to get on Meet The Press to spread “misinformation” even if he clearly has no clue what to do about this.
What will Todd’s 2020 Christmas gift be for highlighting yet another facet of his journalistic malfeasance?
December 25th, 2019 · Comments Off on (Com)Post-able reporting on Trump’s destructive inanity (re wind, energy, technology)
Washington Post (and other news organizations) all too often seem to fall back to ‘both sides’ discussions that foster misunderstandings and implicitly undermines truthful discussion. And, far too often this ‘bothsiderism’ combines with, it seems, fear of angering Trump (or, at least #Cult45 devotees) to create misrepresentations.
LED lighting, efficient toilets, high-efficiency washing machines/dishwashers/etc all save users significant amounts of money (even if they are more expensive to buy, they are (FAR) less expensive to own — higher cost to buy (ctb) but much lower cost to own (cto)).
Pollution is worsening under the Trump regime, APollution is worsening under Trump. This is leading to increased illnesses and worsened mortality rates. It is truthful, literally, to say that Trump policies are killing Americans.
The Post‘s article, at best, glosses over these facts as per:
Often operating from his [Trump’s] own feelings rather than scientific evidence …
Trump regularly cites his personal experience rather than science.
Read and consider that sentence(‘s construction). By using the terms “often operating”, the Post implies that there are times (actually, likely most times) where Trump is actually “operating from … scientific evidence”. Considering that Trump is perhaps the most ‘anti-science’ person to ever occupy the Oval Office, to provide an inference that some of Trump’s rantings against renewable energy and efficiency derives, ever, from any form of “scientific evidence” is to mislead, is to be untruthful in reporting.
focusing on convenience issues like cheaper lightbulbs
Here is where a journalist could be truthful, could educate. Yes, incandescent lightbulbs are “cheaper” to buy but they are far, far, far more expensive to own (see a decade old calculation — case is much stronger today+). With plunging LED prices, dependent on usage, that difference might be counted in a few weeks of ownership.+
Trump’s defenders … say the president’s … reducing regulations has helped … without harming the quality of the nation’s air or water.
… White House spokesman said “… the President has … continued to safeguard the water supply and improve air quality.”
While any with any awareness would understand the absurdity of these assertions and perhaps the article’s authors relied on such awareness, these blatantly false assertions go without context for making clear the deceit. Recent studies have documented (provided the hard data to show) that America’s air quality (for example) is deteriorating under Trump due, in no small part, to failure to enforce and the weakening of regulations designed to protect Americans’ health and well-being. The Intelligencer’s headline summarizes this well: Air Pollution Increases Under Trump, Despite His Claim of World’s ‘Cleanest Air’. For truthful reporting, the Post’s article should have read something like “Trump and his supporters falsely claim …” but, well, this would — it seems — have been ‘taking sides’ while ‘both-siderism’ is so much easier.
And, and, and …
There is so much more to raise, such as the absence of any direct comment about the incoherence of Trump’s statements nor any highlighting of how Trump’s actions to undermine clean energy options are hurting U.S. competitiveness and leading to more illness and deaths due to increased fossil-foolish pollution. We could continue for days dissecting the article and multiple doctoral dissertations taking on Trump’s deceit mentioned in it. This article was, is important in laying out how Trump’s rambling diatribes play into the GOP strategy for the 2020 election. Regretfully, following ‘both sides’ journalism and failing to label truthfully Trump’s deceit plays right into that strategy by giving more credulity to that deceit than justified in any manner.
Far from just one piece.
To be clear, such bothsiderism and a seeming unwillingness isn’t isolated to just one article. Post reporting on the evangelical Christianity Today‘s editorial calling for Trump’s removal and calling out the hypocrisy of evangelical support for Trump provides (too) many additional examples.
Today’s (dead-tree version of the continuing) story opens:
Christianity Today has seen a rush of canceled subscriptions since publishing an editorial that criticized President Trump as “immoral”. But the magazine’s president said the evangelical magazine has logged an even greater wave of new subscribers.
Do you notice what I see? “Canceled subscriptions” is reported as fact while “new subscribers” is reported with “said” which inherently suggests it is an opinion and potentially not truthful.
Later in the article, based on that editors comments, readers learn that there were 2,000 canceled and 5,000 new subscribers. Both numbers come from the same source — the magazine’s president.
Reading through the dead-tree edition of an earlier article shows similar skewing. In every case, quotations and comments about the editorial that support Trump appear first with criticism coming (often far) later in the article. And, there is commentary about the magazine losing subscribers without the truthful comment, already known at that time, that there were more new subscribers than cancellations.
Honest journalism required
“Bothsiderism” leads, especially when there are dishonest and extremist actors in play, leads to misleading (and untruthful) reporting. This, what appears to be, tip-toeing around the emotions of Trump and Cult 45 enables Republican gaslighting. At least some major media players are (finally) waking up to this. For example, Jake Tapper’s one-hour special on All the President’s lies:
“Facts are facts. The earth is not flat,” Tapper added. And the news media, he said, is supposed “to provide accurate information” and “sort through the spin — what really happened, and what is the truth, regardless of who’s asserting it.”
recitals, however, miss the most elemental plank of Trump’s years in power: lying. Falsehoods — usually intentional, occasionally accidental — undergird the formulation, promotion and defense of all presidential policy positions. They are essential to any discussion about this White House, though they’re so frequent, so relentless, that they threaten to inure the public to their ills.
“All the President’s Lies,” a one-hour special report from CNN’s Jake Tapper, seeks to refocus attention on the mendacious foundation of Trumpism.
While The Post hosts one of the best accountings of Trump’s ceaseless lying, with a seemingly exponentially growing count well above 15,000, it is well past time for The Post to maintain a focus on Trumpism’s “mendacious foundation” throughout its journalism rather than (purposefully or inadvertently enabling Trump’s gaslighting of America.
======
UPDATE: A painful front-page example in the days after this post was an article re Trumpism and deficit spending. As per Paul Krugman,
In some ways this article is credulous; it talks about Trump abandoning "traditional Republican concerns" about the deficit. There's actually no evidence the GOP ever cared about deficits, except as a stick to beat Democrats. 1/ https://t.co/uOC5VzP3hK
So I'd say that it's misleading to see all this as a change in economic philosophy. It's really about politically weaponized Keynesianism: austerity for thee, stimulus for me 7/
* This post works from the ‘dead tree’, printed edition of 24 December 2019. There are differences between the online and print edition. For example:
Print: “often operating from his own feelings rather than scientific evidence”
Online: “Trump regularly cites his personal experience rather than science.”
+ A quick calculation between incandescent + LED lightbulb assuming a 100 watt equivalent light used 40 hours per week for one month with electricity at 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Incandescent: 75 cent purchase + electricity (.1 (kilowatt usage) x 40 (hours) x 4 (weeks) x 12.5 (cents per KwH)) = $2.75 in cost
LED: $2 purchase + electricity (0.013 x 40 x 4 x 12.5) = $2.26
E.g., per month, the LED would use about 25 cents of electricity and the incandescent about $2. And, the LED will last decades and the incandescent will need to replace more than once per year on average. After a decade, choosing the “cheaper” at purchase light bulb will be over $100 more expensive. Which is “cheaper” now?
Comments Off on (Com)Post-able reporting on Trump’s destructive inanity (re wind, energy, technology)Tags:Energy
December 24th, 2019 · Comments Off on Getting Virginia to 100 (back of the envelope scratches …)
There are several legislative initiatives to lay down a path forward to modernize Virginia’s electrical grid with co-benefits of boosting the Commonwealth’s economic performance, creating jobs, reducing environmental injustice, improving health (economic, environmental, human), and putting Virginia on a path to address meaningfully the Commonwealth’s climate impacts. These initiatives do not align in many ways (from stances on new fossil fuel infrastructure to energy efficiency targets to …) with a clear discordance when it comes to timelines for achieving a clean energy future.
The Virginia Green New Deal Virginia‘s key legislation introduced by Rep. Sam Rasoul (HB77) “mandates … retail electric suppliers in Virginia to generate 80% of electricity from “clean energy” resources by 2028 and 100% by 2036″.
The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) (note: announced but legislation not released/introduced) targets 60 percent clean electrons by 2036 and 100% by 2050.
The difference between these two targets is greater than the above suggests most notably due to nuclear power which currently provides about one-third of Virginia’s electricity production and the vast majority of non-fossil fuel electricity production.
HB77 explicitly defines “clean energy’ as renewable and/or energy efficiency measures.
“Clean energy” means energy efficiency, energy conservation, demand response, energy storage, and energy derived from solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, and ocean tidal sources.
The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) targets a “carbon-free electricity grid” and thus appears to include nuclear power within its targets. (For example, as per the AEE supporting study‘s roadmapping of ‘carbon-free’ generation out to 2050.)
For those getting confused, it is understandable. Writ large, for climate/energy analysts, there is a relatively simple differentiation: “clean” refers to (near) zero-carbon (thus including nuclear) while “renewable” explicitly excludes nuclear. There are areas which can be disputed as to whether ‘renewable’ or ‘low-carbon’ or not that are part of the electricity grid but which HB77 excludes (biomass, coal-bed methane, land-fill methane, land-fill incineration) and which VCEA may or may not include. These areas are, at this time, about eight percent of Virginia’s electricity supply.
If both (nuclear + miscellaneous other) are included in the VCEA while HB77 excludes them, this means some 35-40 percent of Virginia’s electricity that VCEA counts, already, as clean while HB77’s definition is starting off with just a few percent (essentially solar installations) as clean. In other words, HB77 is far, far more ambitious than the VCEA when it comes to moving Virginia to a renewable energy electricity grid.
As a quick side note, as someone focused on the intersection of climate, energy, environmental justice, security, business and economy, my starting point is “clean” as priority: drive down carbon emissions (along with associated pollution from burning fossil fuels) as quickly as possible while maximizing the economic, social, environmental, and security co-benefits from doing so (targeting a secure and prosperous climate-friendly society).
With the above in mind, struggling to make sense of the potential paths forward to make (as per Governor McAuliffe’s assertion several years ago) “Virginia #1 on climate”, some quick thoughts as to how fast and how Virginia could achieve a carbon-free electricity grid with some quick (appropriate for back-of-the-envelope discussion) assumptions:
Aggressive moves to “electrify everything” (moves to end fossil-fuel reliance in other sectors, such as committing to 100% electric school buses (both public and private) across the Commonwealth by 2030) and economic growth will boost electricity demand but that will roughly balance out with efficiency measures (remembering that Virginia trails the pack, nationwide, re efficiency) to leave total Commonwealth electricity demand ball-park where it is today for the indefinite future.
Existing clean renewables (hydropower, solar) will be summarized as meeting about one-to-two percent of existing demand (in 2017, solar produced 443 gigawatt hours (about 0.33% of total demand) and there have been many installations since then; hydro is about 0.5% of Virginia electricity production).
Already announced Dominion plans for 2.6 gigawatts of offshore wind (roughly meeting 10 percent of Virginia electricity demand by 2026) and 2.5 gigawatts of industrial-scale solar (about 5 percent of electricity demand) along with perhaps 500 megawatts of other solar projects (perhaps 1 percent) are taken as part of ‘business as usual’ (BAU) for future planning.
Taking the above as given, by roughly 2026, about 45 percent of Virginia’s electricity will be from carbon-free sources. Thus, the question:
How and how fast can Virginia create a carbon-emissions free electricity system while meeting other requirements and securing other benefit streams (resiliency, environmental justice, economic benefits, …)?
One place to look for potential roadmapping is the Stanford-based Solutions Project, which is roadmapping paths to 100% WWS (Wind, Water, Solar) energy systems (that includes electrifying across the economy — industry, transportation, heating…). For Virginia (pdf), they propose a 2050 mix of 60% wind (50% offshore, 10% onshore), 38% solar, and 2% a mix of water (traditional hydropower, tidal, wave). For the offshore, this could imply perhaps 25-35 gigawatts of offshore wind production capacity.
Earlier this fall, Governor Northam announced a target of 30 percent renewable electricity by 2030. That target would combine with the nuclear power production for 60% “carbon-free” electricity. Existing solar and wind projects and plans get Virginia half-way to Northam’s targets. Here are some thoughts to meet and exceed the other half within the next decade.
2030: 6GW of offshore wind (more than 25% of total electricity demand)
2035: 11GW of offshore wind (more than 40%)
2040: 16+GW of offshore wind
Onshore Wind: Especially south-west Virginia, the Commonwealth has some interesting niches (think winds concentrated in a valley) of good-quality wind resources. While a number of projects have been proposed for development, Virginia doesn’t yet have any meaningful onshore wind in operations … but it could in the near future (such as 75MW from Rocky Forge as soon as 2021 with Pinewood’s 150MW potentially operational in 2022). Target of 500 megawatts of onshore wind (with, to make things interesting and create more value for the grid and local communities, tens of gigawatt hours of underground constructed pumped hydropower storage) by 2030 would provide perhaps 2-3 percent of Virginia’s electricity.
Solar: While de minimis in Virginia’s energy picture just a few years ago, solar (installations and production) is showing exponential growth in the Commonwealth from rooftops to utility-scale installations. Building on what is already announced,
clearly achievable by 2030 …
Double utility-scale solar with another 2.5GW (e.g., 5GW total)
Distributed production (think on top of large malls, schools, parking lots etc…) in commercial and government sites. 2GW
Residential / small business rooftop solar: .5GW
These would combine for 5GW of additional solar on top of existing and announced solar plans for a total of approximately 7.5GW install solar which would meet in the ballpark of 10-15 percent of total electricity demand.
Okay, just a few scratches on the back of the envelope and Virginia is ballpark 70 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030 (even while moving fast to ‘electrify everything) with a clear roadmap for 100 percent carbon-free electrons by the mid-2030s and the option, if it makes sense a decade from now, for moving to a renewable-only electricity grid by perhaps the mid-2040s.
Now, the napkin notes planning out above obviously would require legislative and regulatory action to make a reality but the above isn’t heavy lifting in technological nor economic terms. It doesn’t violate any laws of nature (no new elements of the periodic table created), doesn’t assume or rely on emergent energy technology (which, well, will occur), and doesn’t require WWII-like mobilization to make a reality.
As to that last, Virginia actually could do far, far better than the above suggests if we (collectively) rise to climate realities and necessities. With our resources (human capital, financial, natural, industrial), the Commonwealth could make a reality of Virginia being “#1 on climate issues”. With a World War II-like mobilization treating the climate emergency for what it is (an existential threat requiring action that, at the same time, creates tremendous opportunity), Virginia could achieve a 100 percent clean electricity system within the decade even while moving forcefully to ‘electrify everything’.
Comments Off on Getting Virginia to 100 (back of the envelope scratches …)Tags:Energy
December 22nd, 2019 · Comments Off on Virginia’s Clean Economy Act: Are the analytical underpinnings fatally (pessimistically) flawed
Last week, a broad environmental coalition and multiple Virginia state legislators coalesced for the announcement of the “Virginia Clean Economy Act” (VCEA). When one sees organizations like CCAN and its climate hawk founder/director Mike Tidwell pushing hard to build momentum for the VCEA, the presumption has to be that this is serious action that would put Virginia well on the path to doing what is possible and necessary for the Commonwealth to do to address the climate crisis. Compared to what had been possible when fossil-foolish, climate-science denying Virginia Republicans controlled the legislature, there is no question that this Act’s objective to have a 100% clean power system by 2050 (60% by 2036) is a breath of fresh air.
While there are many aspects of (and certainly the intent of many promoting) the legislation that merit praise, seemingly unambitious targets have caused many to scratch their heads asking why the objectives and requirements weren’t (far, far) more ambitious: ‘What is going on here?’ ‘Is there something that I don’t understand?’
For starters, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a 60 percent clean electrons Virginia electricity supply could well be achieved without anyone at the wheel by 2030. This would occur simply due to already announced clean (renewable) electricity projects (such as Dominion’s September 2019 announcement of a 2.6 gigawatt offshore wind project and Fairfax County going forward with more than 100 rooftop installations) and reasonable supposition as to what the market will naturally do due to the continuing plummeting of clean electron prices.
Asking around as to ‘how were the core targets arrived at’, a number of people sent me to “Virginia’s Energy Transition: Charting the Benefits and Tradeoffs of Virginia’s Transition to a 100% Clean Grid” (pdf). Published in September 2019 by Advanced Energy Economy, this report provides a detailed analytical look at the requirements for and payoffs from achieving a 100% clean power sector by 2030, 2040, or 2050. In all three cases, the analysis makes clear that Virginia and Virginia electricity ratepayers would do far better with moving to a clean electricity system rather than remaining on a fossil-foolish business as usual path. While analysis shows that the largest total benefits would occur from the most aggressive path (2030), the report concludes that this would drive up near-term homeowner costs and thus leads to a conclusion that a slower path would work better politically even if the full benefit streams would not be as high.
Reading through the report led to head scratching and concerns that issues in the report foster a misguided understanding of the status that helped drive an unambitious approach in developing the VCEE. Here are three issues along with potential implications from them:
Remaining Stove-Piped and Not Proposing Ways to Solve Logjams
The study analysis concludes that acting to achieve the 2030 target (putting aside for the moment the two following issues) would drive up household electricity bills in the mid-2020s and leave homeowners without total electricity savings until almost 2040 due to capital investment requirements (both for new clean electricity production and for paying off early retired fossil fuel systems). Not just politically, if true, this is a real issue that would be an obstacle to achieving a clean power system.
What the study failed to do, likely because of limitations in their charter, is provide options for addressing (eliminating or, at least, ameliorating) this issue. For example, the benefits of the clean electrons will accrue not just to power users. We will all have cleaner air to breath. There will be more and higher-paying jobs. The Commonwealth will have more tax revenue. Hmmm, think about that last. Couldn’t (a portion of) the additional revenues be used to eliminate that identified early cost hit? Perhaps, for example, the Commonwealth could provide borrowing authority so that renewable energy projects will have lower interest and longer term loans? Thinking outside the box to solve identified problems weren’t, however, likely in the study contract.
Using rejected Dominion Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as key source
Long ago, an econometrics professor (who headed, btw, the CIA’s econometrics team) pounded into me the importance to reading, following, and asking questions of study footnotes. In wondering about this report’s conclusions, Appendix A’s Footnote 1 seemed sort of odd.
Footnote 1: Dominion’s May 2018 IRP submission
Footnote 1 refers to Dominion’s May 2018 Integrated Resource Plan which was submitted to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for review. If one is unfamiliar with the Commonwealth’s energy situation and interactions with Dominion, this would seem a very reasonable basis for doing analysis and planning. After all, Dominion provides the majority of the Commonwealth’s electricity and the IRP is the required reporting about what Dominion sees over the coming 15 years.
Dominion continually insists on using outdated modeling practices to predict future electricity demand, and it doubles down on this error by proposing to satisfy that demand in a non-economic fashion. This approach marginalizes lower-cost options like energy efficiency and solar in favor of expensive, company-owned, customer-financed natural gas infrastructure—an approach that will force unnecessary costs on customers while allowing Dominion to earn high rates of returns to the benefit of its shareholders.
Dominion was required to rework elements of the IRP and returned in March 2019 with a significantly lower (though almost certain still exaggerated) forecast for future electricity demand in Dominion territory. As far as can be determined (and after having sent requests Friday to multiple people seeking to confirm this without, as of this writing, any response), the report relied solely on the May 2018 IRP’s highly inflated forecasts of electricity demand rather than using the somewhat less inflated March 2019 numbers.
Basing requirements planning with a (MUCH) higher total makes bridging the gap between today’s roughly 39 percent clean power (electricity) and a 100 clean power system (MUCH) more difficult.
If, as seems to be the case, this report relied on the rejected March 2018 IRP for its projection of future Virginia electricity demand, then it started from a (far) more pessimistic starting point than reasonable.
OBE means overtaken by events
Conducting analysis and writing a substantive report can take real resources and time. These aren’t overnight events. And, real-world events can make a report OBE even before it is printed. This report was released in September 2019. Also in September 2019: Dominion’s announcement of plans for 2.6 gigawatts of offshore wind to be installed and operating before the end of 2026. As of September 2019, therefore, a major portion (roughly 10 percent) of current Virginia electricity annual demand will be wind power by 2026. As it is an announced plan, that should make it part of ‘business as usual’ forecasting. Not surprising, this major wind project (along with other recent clean energy announcements) isn’t reflected in the report.
Put on your spectacles (pull out a microscope) to find wind in the “BAU” case: Dominion’s Offshore Wind announcement made this table OBE
Further dissection might reveal
While it might appear otherwise, the above are just a few points from an initial, cursory look at the report. It might well be that more detailed dissection would reveal additional ways in which this report provides a (highly) pessimistic basis for planning a Virginia Clean Economy.
December 22nd, 2019 · Comments Off on How fast can Virginia get to 60% clean electrons? Scratches on a back of an envelope
The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) targets having 60 percent of Virginia’s electrons ‘clean’ (e.g., low-to-no carbon emissions on generation) by 2036 and 100 percent by 2050. While finally, if passed, legislating a clean power (more prosperous and resilient) future for the Commonwealth, this bill would still leave Virginia a middling player (not a leader) in state clean power targets nationally and would fall far short of providing the sort of steps that appear required to address and mitigate climate risks. It is thus worth asking, is that 60×36 (not quite a rallying cry) an ambitious move forward, stretching Virginia’s potential, or could Virginia do far better in ‘win-win’ (economic + environmental) terms?
To start, about where is Virginia today?
In 2018, natural gas fueled 53% of Virginia’s electricity net generation, nuclear power provided almost 31%, coal fueled about 10% and renewable resources, primarily biomass, supplied nearly 7%. (Energy Information Administration)
Putting aside for the moment the questionable nature of ‘biomass’, combining nuclear and renewable resources means that roughly 38 percent of the Dominion’s electricity was clean as of the start of 2019. Thus, to hit that 60% target would require a 22% bump in clean electrons share of Virginia’s grid by 2036 compared to 2018’s situation.
How many electrons are we talking about? According to EIA, Virginia uses about 104 terrawatt hours of electricity per annum.
Assuming zero change in electricity demand for simplicity, this means that Virginia would need to add about 23 terrawatt hours (TwH) (or 23,000 gigawatt hours or 23,000,000 megawatt hours or 23,000,000,000 kilowatt hours) of clean electrons to meet those targets. That sounds like a lot … or does it?
Dominion has also announced plans for over 2.5 gigawatts of industrial scale solar projects (with Dominion “to add 3,000 megawatts of new solar and wind generation in Virginia by 2022″ (and, well, very little of that wind by 2022). At a .2 capacity factor, 2.5 gigawatts of solar would be 4.4 TwH of clean electrons by the mid-2020s or about 20% of the requirement to meet the 2036 target.
We are now at 70% of the 2036 targets without leaving Dominion and without projecting beyond already announced projects and plans.
Fairfax County has announced over 100 rooftop solar projects. With perhaps 500 kilowatts, per average, on each site and with that .2 capacity factor, this would add perhaps 0.1 TwH/year (along with clear intentions to add more). Another percent or so hits the dust …
If we went through every announced clean energy project and plan for the coming decade, this initial scratching of the back of the envelope suggests that the 60% target would be met well before the 2030 timeframe. And, of course, that isn’t even considering the certainty of new projects emerging in the intervening time frame.
Hmmm, with this in mind, ask yourself, is that 60×36 (not quite a rallying cry) an ambitious move forward, stretching Virginia’s potential, or could Virginia do far better in ‘win-win’ (economic + environmental) terms?
If we had instead invested the $6 trillion we squandered on war in the Middle East, we would, two decades later, have made our grid more resilient with battery storage, and be generating 100% of our electricity with wind and solar. Moreover, existing sources of renewable energy would be sufficient to power a substantial portion of our passenger cars with clean, renewable electricity.
Incredible.
What a lost opportunity.
For those long advocating renewable energy investments, this painful ‘what if’ calculation comes at no surprise even as it is a welcomed exercise to provide tangible numbers to back up what we have long believed.
Worth highlighting, however, is that Gipe’s calculation is actually pessimistic in many ways due a stove-piped look at what it would cost to deploy the wind, solar, and battery systems rather than more robust cost-and-benefits assessment.
Here are just a few ways in which a more robust analysis would have created an even stronger case:
Consideration of Avoided Costs with a renewables deployment,
How much would not have been spent on fossil fuel deployment (coal and natural gas power plants, pipelines, etc…) (and even failed nuclear power plant projects) and fossil fuels? (E.g., these renewables would have displaced something.)
To what extent would the power system’s negative externalities (air, ground, water pollution (for example)) been reduced with, therefore, reduced health care costs, reduced environmental remediation costs, reduced requirements for climate-change mitigation investments, etc?
How would renewables deployment Created Value
Since this assumes government investment in renewables, would US electricity costs been much lower (since renewables are almost entirely CAPEX and not OPEX) with benefits throughout the economy?
How would being the true world leaders in renewable deployment (and thus innovation, manufacturing, etc …) have boosted U.S. competitiveness and balance of trade?
What might have been spinoffs and innovations from a serious, long-term investment in a clean energy economy over the past 20 years?
Spending these trillions of dollars in U.S. communities would have mean millions (tens of millions) of domestic jobs due to both the direct expenditure and the economic multiplier impacts.
The nation would have seen significant productivity improvements due, in part, to reduced pollution/health care impacts.
Since this is all (sadly) a counter-factual exercise, perhaps we should think about expanding the counter-factual.
Would this path have muted (if not preempted) the 2008 fiscal crash? With $100s of billions being pumped into the domestic economy, creating value and employment throughout the nation, would this economic vitality have had enough positive impact to mute the damage wrought by fiscal improprieties (and illegalities) in the financial sector sparking a global economic meltdown?
Without a constant need for war-fighting attention from the nation’s leadership and the turning of some of the nation’s most talented people/institutions to solving military challenges (such as countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), would these resources have been targeted to address (even solve) other serious issues: from education to health care to water quality to … How many new businesses, how many new inventions, how many valuable new policy options executed without the drain on resources (again, not just fiscal, but also human and institutional) for fighting these wars of choice?
From the villages of the Middle East to American communities, how many people would be healthier, how many people would be alive (not just from conflict, but also warfare), if America hadn’t thrown $Trillions, many 100,000s of people, and thousands of lives into misbegotten wars of choice and had, instead, spent those resources on creating a prosperous, resilient, secure, climate-friendly United States of America?
All of the above just is cracking the door open on the co-benefits that serious investing in renewable energy starting in 2001 would have provide us (the U.S. and, in many ways, all of humanity) already by 2020 and for the decades and centuries to come.
Yes, America, we could have had 100% renewable electricity with the resources wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq … but this understates the case since we could have had so, so, so much more.
Comments Off on Bush’s wars could have paid for 100% clean power … and so much moreTags:Energy
The budget includes the single-largest increase for at-risk schools in Virginia history, raises teacher salaries 3 percent, funds more school counselors and new staff supports for English language learners, and makes significant new flexible funds available for local divisions.
With other proposals for pre-K funding and “to make tuition-free community college available to low- and middle-income students who pursue jobs in high-demand fields,” it seems clear that the Northam administration believes that the Democratic Party control of both house will enable real steps forward in strengthening Virginia’s educational system.
Upfront, educational system performance and outcomes matter to, among other things, Virginia’s economy. Boosting high school graduation rates (one of the likely outcomes from the Governor’s proposed investments) leads to improved local (and state) economic performance: increased employment and salaries, higher tax revenues, reduced health expenses, and reduced government expenditures (such as on prisons). Thus, there are many reasons to praise and welcome Governor Northam’s proposals.
Absent from these proposals, however, is the most cost-effective tool to improve educational outcomes: (an aggressive program to) Green the Schools. In short, greening school systems provides a reliable path to:
Improve
Educational Results
Student, Teacher, and Staff morale
Student, Teacher, and Staff health
Improve Economic Performance in the near-, mid-, and long-term
Create jobs in the local economy
Reduce
pollution
costs
As to that last, the odds are that greening the school system might be the only reliable path to reduce costs while improving results.
And, oh by the way, an aggressive program to green Virginia’s schools would also help the Commonwealth move to tackle the climate challenge.
Save money … reduce pollution … demonstrate leadership … boost economic performance … improve educational outcomes … taking even a cursory look at the benefit streams makes it clear that a green schools program should be top of the agenda.
Some background and additional thoughts
Understanding benefits …
When approaching the analysis with an open mind, it becomes clear: greening schools might be the most cost-effective path toward improving school performance. In fact, it might be the only educational achievement enhancing path that is also “profitable” (due to energy and operational cost benefits) even without considering the secondary (job creation, student/teacher health) and tertiary (pollution levels, capacity building for energy efficiency and other “green” across the country) benefits.
How could “Greening a School” improve educational achievement? Let us take just a few examples:
Energy Efficient Windows: Imagine your childhood classroom, the single-pane windows. When you sat next to that window in winter you might have been freezing and in hot fall/late school year frying in sun relative to your classmate 10 feet away. You are not wrong if you believe eliminating that discomfort would have made it easier for you to focus on the teacher and your studies.
Daylighting: Obviously, human eyes have evolved with fluorescent lighting. (Not!) Consistently, tested performance (stores, factory workers, office workers (pdf) (also (pdf)), schools) has shown improvements with increased daylighting.
Greening the Schools, for many reasons, will improve student performance with healthier (driving lower absenteeism, as seen in the office environment) and more attentive students in an environment more conducive to learning. There are, however, a fuller range of benefits:
Save money for communities and taxpayers: Quite directly, public infrastructure is one of the clearest places where the taxpayer should be concerned about the “cost to own” against the “cost to buy”. Infrastructure greening projects often have under five year paybacks due to utility (water, gas, electricity, sewage) and maintenance savings. These savings alone can make a good payback for going green. But thinking stove-piped only about direct savings sells greening schools short.There are also indirect savings. “Green” buildings have far lower absentee rates of workers. Lower absenteeism = lower costs for substitute teachers. Green buildings will have lower maintenance requirements and more longevity for components. For example, highly reflective (cool) or green roofs have roughly twice the longevity of asphalt roofs, thus not just leading to lowered energy costs but basically meaning that the roofs won’t require replacement before the entire school might require renovation 30-40 years in the future.
Create employment: Renovating buildings and investing in infrastructure today to lower tomorrow’s costs means replacing spending on energy, water use, and health care (for example) on the labor and materials (from insulation to green roofing). And, these jobs (as per below) are unlikely to disappear when school renovation and construction is “done” (which, across the Commonwealth, is unlikely to ever occur as there is 10s of billions of $$$ in backlogged renovation requirements and new schools sprout up with changing demographics) as the skills and requirements are directly transferable into other government infrastructure, businesses and homes. As well, for the local community, this means creating jobs and economic activity within the economy rather than (in most cases) spending even more money to import energy from outside the community.
Foster capacity for “greening” the Commonwealth: Via this initiative, school systems across the country would create demand for architects, general contractors, and workers who understand how to build with energy efficiency and environmental consequences in mind. Local government officials (politicians, administrators, code writers, inspectors) will learn about the benefits and technical issues of “green.” The general public will learn about “green” and energy-efficiency options. (If your child’s elementary school introduces efficient lighting, solar hot water, energy efficient windows, etc, you will hear about it time-after-time from the principal, the PTA, and perhaps your child.) Via “greening” public buildings, in a Commonwealth-Local-Private partnership, this will foster capacity and the lower the barriers for the private sector (whether businesses or home owners) to call on for “greening” businesses and homes. And, it will create demand, as people get exposed to the benefits that accrue from this path. And, greening America’s building infrastructure is one of the most exciting and beneficial opportunities for tackling global warming.
Reduce pollution loads: Reduced energy demand, by definition, will reduce pollution levels. Better cleaning products and water management will reduce runoff into the sewage system and have less loaded water runoff. Greened buildings and school grounds will also reduce urban-heat island impacts.
Improve health: From asthma, colds, allergies, or long-term impacts like cancer, green buildings foster improved health. Improved health translates rather directly to performance (better attendance (by teachers and students) leads to (system wide) better performance; better health when in class does as well).
And, perhaps most importantly, greening schools boosts student performance and academic achievement: Think about all those benefits above, think about them holistically. If the impact on student performance were neutral, Greening Schools would be a no-brainer. Yet, all of the analysis to date points to improved educational achievement as one goes up the green ladder in school infrastructure.
Fewer absences mean higher student performance.
Fewer days with substitute teachers means higher student performance.
Better daylighting, cleaner air, better heating/cooling, quieter spaces (in part due to more efficient HVAC systems), etc all mean better student performance.
Taking aggressive action to green schools is about one of the smartest steps the Commonwealth can take, action that should go beyond bipartisanship to true unity of action as it is a win-win-win-win strategy along so many paths:
College Park Elementary, Virginia Beach City Public Schools
Perhaps the Governor could visit these and meet with leading Virginia experts en route to making greening schools a centerpiece of his educational plan.
December 6th, 2019 · Comments Off on Legislating for Electric School Buses: Some Thoughts and Principles …
Not that long ago, electric buses (EBs) were marginalia, an expensive, niche option that required enthusiastic and unyielding proponents to get them deployed into actual operations with robust analysis considering all benefit streams enabling justifying their purchase to green-eye-shade-dominated financial officers.
Today, that equation has changed, significantly. Literally 100,000s of EBs are now deployed around the world, costs have plummeted such that they increasingly are clearly the better financial option even in stove-piped analysis (considering only direct acquisition and operating costs), and mounting evidence of other benefits (environmental, health, reliability, safety, passenger satisfaction, etc) increasingly make ‘going electric’ a no-brainer decision: a decision that we need to see, increasingly, in Virginia as well as across the nation and the planet.
What is true for EBs is even more powerfully true for a subset of EBs, Electric School Buses (ESBs). ESBs are a powerful “multisolving” opportunity. Replacing diesel buses with ESBs will:
improve educational performance; student and community health; transportation quality and safety; electrical grid resiliency and performance.
reduce particulate, climate, and noise pollution; transportation, health care, and other costs.
Support Electric Buses
Until quite recently, a theoretical option blocked by high upfront investment requirements, ESBs are increasingly viable and on the edge of becoming “no-brainer” first choices. This is not a tiny space. Virginia has some 17,000 diesel buses just within the public school systems (Fairfax County Public Schools, alone, has over 1,500). For an understanding of scale, replacing those 17,000 school buses with electric buses could well represent in the range of $3b-$5b of capital expenditures (for buses, charging infrastructure, etc) even while the benefit streams will have far greater value than that. E.g., big expenditures for even bigger payoffs. Recently announced ESB programs by Dominion Energy and Governor Ralph Northam have thrust Virginia into a leadership position for ESB deployment.
To quickly summarize:
Dominion plans a 50-ESB test project using its own resources over the coming year, and proposes a path forward for thousands more over the coming decade, leveraging fees on customers. This program could (likely would) deliver tremendous value (such as reducing youth asthma incidents) but will be run solely by Dominion, with decision-making as to program priorities driven by grid benefit streams (and Dominion profit maximization), rather than a robust understanding of full value streams and “the public good.”
Governor Northam is leveraging Volkswagen (VW) settlement money for a limited demonstration program that would get perhaps a few dozen ESBs on the street but does not seem to provide a clear path for expanding ESBs throughout the Commonwealth in the years to come.
While there is reason to praise and see value in both the Dominion-proposed ESB project and Governor Northam’s use of VW money for ESBs, there is as much reason to question whether their structures will foster the best outcome for Virginia and lead to lost opportunities.
Just-introduced legislation by Delegate Kate Kory (essentially authorizing the Dominion project as discussed here), and likely other bills to come, show that the legislature is likely to step in with guidance as to how Virginia can and should “go electric” when it comes to school buses in the years ahead. The legislature has a real opportunity, if it steps in, to put Virginia truly in a leadership position when it comes to ESBs (and large vehicle electrification), to boost educational outcomes, to address environmental injustice, to improve student and community health, to strengthen the grid, to reduce pollution, and to reduce school system transportation costs while providing a significant economic windfall for the Commonwealth.
With that in mind, here are several principles to consider in any legislation:
Public or Public-Private, NOT Private
Determining standards for and managing school buses for carrying our children attending public schools is inherently a public function (even as too many school systems have outsourced this). As the ESBs have significant value streams and justifications external to narrowly defined interests (such as power supply benefits that Dominion is understandably focused on), it is even less appropriate to turn over standards development and key decisions related to bus procurement over to a private entity.
Enabling the Dominion ‘demonstration’ project to progress without significantly more government engagement and oversight presents many risks. For example, Dominion could well develop a business structure that will lead to excess profits (such as partnerships with/ownership of the ESB manufacturer) while developing standards that enable it to exclude (for all extensive purposes) competition from the market place.
Public entities and experts should be involved throughout the process — developing standards, assessing cost/benefit streams, writing/assessing RFIs/RFPs, etc — as there will be (in a rational world) billions of dollars of taxpayer (and billions of dollars of private) funds spent related to ESBs in the decade(s) to come.
Legislators should mandate either a public entity to take lead for ESB procurement and deployment or the establishment of a public-private structure (including, for example, not just Dominion, but also other utilities like Appalachian Power) to enhance the probability of success and a true win-win-win ESB program in the years to come.
Accelerate and expand
The evidence mounts every day that humanity must start reducing its carbon emissions now – and do so at a very serious pace. Displacing diesel buses with electric-powered ones makes sense even without a climate implication. With that imperative, we should act in an expedited fashion. While the target should be 100% ESBs by 2030, likely decreased costs with increasing acquisition and learning curves could well enable hitting that target years earlier.
The legislature should set a 100% K-12 ESB target not just for the public schools, but for all Virginia school transportation as well as other buses (public transportation, hotel/airport shuttles, etc …).
Understand and include full costs and benefits in decision-making
Going electric will bring tremendous value across multiple domains. We know this. WE KNOW THIS. From reducing future cancer rates to reduced noise on the streets, etc., the benefit streams clearly exist for any who care to look for a moment. Robust understanding of these benefit streams are not, however, truly engaged in decision-making. A clear assessment seems likely to show that “positive externalities” (such as reducing student absenteeism and otherwise fostering improved educational outcomes) could well have a greater public value than the entire cost of acquiring ESBs. I say “could,” because although we might know these value streams exist, there is no existing clear Virginia assessment of such value streams and no real means to include them in the decision-making process.
Having a robust understanding of costs and benefit streams would likely justify acceleration of ESB procurement and deployment. And, that is likely true with many other “clean energy” and greening program spaces.
The legislature should mandate a “fully-burdened cost/benefit” assessment for ESBs. And, as part of the reporting from this work, the legislature should require recommendations as to what should occur (establishing analytical teams (perhaps at universities); changing mandates to governing agencies; etc) so that such robust assessments are included across government decision-making (such as by the State Corporation Commission in considering regulated utility investment plans).
Leverage an aggressive ESB program to boost the Virginia economy
If Virginia will set itself on a path for replacing (essentially) all (public and private) school buses over a decade period, this will be a significant acquisition project that will likely need to hit 2,000 new ESBs per year by the mid-2020s, easily 160 per month, or over five buses per day, 365 days a year. This is not a minor number nor a minor industrial project. There is a very simple requirement to be made here: the contract agreement (and thus the RFIs/RFPs (request for information/request for proposals)) must have provisions for the ESB supplier (the manufacturer) to build the buses in Virginia, establish research facilities in Virginia, and (likely) establish its main maintenance and support structure for (at least) the East Coast in Virginia. A cursory, initial back-of-the-envelope assessment suggests that this could translate into (at least) several thousand well-paying manufacturing jobs (and, with multiplier effect, could mean 10k new jobs in the Virginia economy by the middle of the next decade).
The legislature should mandate that any ESB program should require “made in Virginia” content.
September 24th, 2019 · Comments Off on During #ClimateWeek, @EIAgov doubles down on forecasting climate catastrophe
This morning, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released the annual International Energy Outlook (IEO2019) which provides a forecast re energy through 2050. With projecting that energy demand growth will outpace renewable energy growth (with increased natural gas, oil, and coal usage) through 2050, EIA is forecasting that carbon emissions from energy usage will grow by roughly 0.6% per year … essentially indefinitely.
Should EIA forecasts come with a warning label? (Courtesy: Price of Oil)
This projection comes out as the world’s scientists have made clear that carbon emissions must start reducing rapidly and significantly (to net zero emissions by 2050). If not, humanity will face catastrophic climate impacts. Paraphrasing the summary of the EIA’s 2018 Annual Energy Outlook, EIA’s IEO 2019 forecast summary line is:
humanity is EFFed when it comes to an opportunity to mitigate climate change through reduced energy emissions.
There is, however, a silver lining. Almost certainly, in line with EIA’s strong tradition, IEO 2019 is almost certainly too pessimistic when it comes to renewable energy and the ability for clean electrons to displace polluting energy sources.
For example, consider this sentence from page 94:
Although renewables are cost-competitive with new fossil-fired electric generating capacity additions, displacing existing non-renewable capacity requires policy incentives.
Hmmm … this forecasting scenario goes out for 32 years. Today, in the vast majority of the world, renewables aren’t “cost-competitive” but are significantly price advantaged against “new fossil-fired electricity generating capacity”.
When it comes to cheap electricity, the centre of gravity is shifting rapidly away from fossil fuels around the world.
More significantly, renewables are “cost-competitive” against existing fossil fuel electric generating plants in much of the world today and will be cost-advantaged against even more today. Around the world, power sector planners are considering whether and how to retire polluting plants earlier so that they can make more profits, providing cleaner electrons, at lower prices to their customers. Clearly, policy incentives would accelerate decisions to retire plants earlier, but straight-forward business decision-making even within existing policy will lead to early retirements of polluting energy systems.
Most stunningly, seemingly contrary to all other forecasting out there, EIA forecast significant coal usage growth and, again, do not see renewable energy driving it out of the marketplace. Carbon Tracker researchers examined this in detail and their conclusions are quite stunning.
42% of global coal capacity is already unprofitable because of high fuel costs; by 2040 that could reach 72% as existing carbon pricing and air pollution regulations drive up costs while the price of onshore wind and solar power continues to fall; any future regulation would make coal power still more unprofitable;
it costs more to run 35% of coal power plants than to build new renewable generation; by 2030 building new renewables will be cheaper than continuing to operate 96% of today’s existing and planned coal plants.
China could save $389 billion by closing [coal] plants in line with the Paris Climate Agreement instead of pursuing business as usual plans; the EU could save $89 billion; the US could save $78 billion; and Russia could save $20 billion.
The core point is well captured by Carbon Tracker energy analyst Sebastian Ljungwaldh,
“Our analysis shows a least-cost power system without coal should be seen as an economic inevitability rather than a clean and green nicety.”
Think about those moments almost giddy with excitement about something and the excitement dissipates as you look even just a little bit closer at the item. You know, like those “you have won the Nigerian lottery” emails. Recently, I had one of those moments on a work trip. Stopped to stretch my legs along I-64, at the New Kent rest stop where I’ve been before, and realized that I had to restart the car — across the parking, 100 feet away, a Dominion Energy – Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) electric charging station. Simply put, YEAH!!!
Yeah, that’s my charger hanging there as I plugged in my plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) for some electrons to move me down the highway a little quieter, a little less polluting, a little more comfortable, a little safer …
The plug-in process made this a Nigerian lottery win situation. This is a 110-volt (e.g., typical basic wall plug level) plug and supports what is called a Level 1 charger. Seeing this — and that one has to have one’s own charger cable — certainly put a damper on the enthusiasm and added an asterisk to the praise above.
Major * to the "kudos":
Seriously, Level 1 chargers? At a rest stop. Took a 30 minute stretch/walk to see just what it would mean … WOW .. a total of 2 miles of charge. This is not serious and not a useful step toward electrification of transportation.
That’s right — all of two miles of charge with a 30 minute stop. And, this rest stop has (essentially) the only publicly available charger between Williamsburg and Richmond (see map of VA charging stations). “This is not serious and not a useful step” was a rather polite way of putting my frustration as the bubble had burst on the initial enthusiasm.
A level 1 (110/120 volt) charger provides roughly four miles per hour of charging. For a highway rest stop, that is laughable unless (perhaps) someone plans to sleep overnight in their car. A level 2 (220/240 volt) provides (dependent on multiple factors) 15 to 45 miles per hour. E.g., a 30 minute stop with a Level 2 charger would have come close to fully charging my Ford C-Max Energi‘s 17 miles of electric range. Not like filling a gas tank but enough, perhaps, to get to the next exit. For a situation like this ‘plug outlet’ (since Dominion and VDOT don’t provide charging cables), the investment and operating cost difference to have both 120 and 240 volt service, rather than just 120, would be de minimis. A Level 3 charger, which would boost charging significantly, would cost substantially more.
Now, I’ve been to that rest stop multiple times, with the PHEV, and seem to have simply missed this charging station as it seems to have been there for a long time. From a September 2009 Virginia-Pilot article on plans for EV chargers at Virginia rest stops.
The New Kent Safety Rest Area, off Interstate 64, received the first station this month. It can accommodate up to four vehicles at a time and charges at 120 volts, though Dominion is expected to upgrade it to 240 volts.
A decade later, we’re still waiting for that upgrade.
While that Dominion/VDOT press release (that came “at no expense to the state“), for simply putting in a 110/120 outlet, might have ‘felt good’ in 2009, real-world requirements and opportunities make clear that it is not even a sub-optimal solution in 2019. VDOT and Dominion should, at minimum, actually do that upgrade to 240 volts — and, more appropriately, have actually plug cables (rather than make it dependent on drivers carrying cables with them).
One-hand clapping over Virginia use of VW settlement money?
Leveraging VW settlement money, Virginia has, underway, a fast charger program with EVgo. Regretfully, what seems to be a rather opaque program (multiple requests for information have been unresponded to), does not seem to be focused on a rapid upgrading of electric charging at rest stops throughout the Commonwealth. (The level of VDOT priority perhaps indicated by the fact that electric charging isn’t among VDOT’s numerous “projects” listing.) The first set of fast chargers will be in Tyson’s Corner, an area where there are already some (though, of course, not enough) chargers already available. Thus, the leveraging of VW settlement funds (for chargers, for electric buses, for …) seems to be another set of ‘one hand clapping standing ovation’ situations to be covered in future posts.
Map of Tyson’s Corner publicly available electric charging stations (Plug-In-America)
Virginia EV charging, in fact, has too many ‘one-hand clapping’ situations. For example, retailers (like Ikea) providing EV charging at 55 cents per kilowatt hour is absurd. It drives down charging (making the electricity perhaps twice as expensive as gasoline for my vehicle) when simply providing chargers, with free (even if limited) charging leads to significant revenue boosts that greatly exceed the electricity prices. Sigh … one hand clapping Ikea.
