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.
September 3rd, 2019 · Comments Off on Dominion Virginia Energy’s Electrifying Bus Announcement: Thoughts on this potentially game changing move
Last Friday, Dominion Virginia Energy announced a major electric school bus (EV Bus) program: to replace 100% of the diesel school buses (roughly 13,000), in its service area, by 2030 with EV Buses. This is a potentially game changing initiative that could rapidly drive down EV Bus prices and open the door for rapid moves elsewhere in the country. (An analogy: could this do, via economies of scale and setting up a real market, for EV Buses what Germany (principally) did for solar panels?)
The Dominion program merits excitement … but it also raises some questions. This post will
overview EV bus benefits,
outline the Dominion Program
ask questions and provide some thoughts.
EV Buses are (ever so much) better than diesel buses
Utility service performance (batteries for grid stability and backup)
Satisfaction with bus services
Reduced
Air pollution — local to global
Noise pollution
Bus service costs
Total energy costs (not just for school system)
Wow, we can boost educational outcomes, have healthier people and planet, reduce noice, improve electrical grid performance, increase customer (user) satisfaction … all for a lower cost. Why aren’t all our buses electric?
With all these benefits, the fundamental challenge is what so many ‘energy smart’ options face: significantly upfront costs with lower total ownership costs. In other words, even though the buses’ cost to own (CtO) is lower, the cost to buy (CtB) is higher. And, that sticker price is hard to swallow.
Exacerbating this ‘green-eye shade’ challenge are numerous system and process challenges like slow decision-making processes in the face of rapid technological change (EV buses weren’t a real option even a few years ago) and conservative (bureaucratic) approaches leery of taking risks. With that in mind, the cost hurdle is one that few have chosen to leap. Dominion’s proposal takes this upfront cost challenge on directly — and removes it from local school district decision-making.
And, one of the true game changing potentials of the Dominion plan isn’t ‘just’ the buses in Virginia but that such a substantial program, over a decade-long period, will create enough of a market to get serious manufacturers building electric school buses and the large number will rapidly drive down per unit costs (and thus reduce, significantly, that upfront purchase challenge).
Dominion Virginia Announced Plan
Dominion’s plan is ambitious — in timing and scope. In short, over a ten-year period, Dominion is proposing to upgrade/and or replace 13,000 diesel school buses in its Virginia territory with electric school buses — and pay 100% of the “cost to upgrade from diesel to electric“. This fast-tracked program plans to have 50 electric buses on the road by the end of 2020, 200 buses per year for the next five, and well over 1,000 per year for the rest of the 2020s. Dominion will cover initial costs out of its cash reserves and seek rate base adjustments to cover additional costs in the future (peaking at $1/month per customer).
Announced just before Labor Day, Dominion is opening applications September 5th and closing applications for initial 50-bus demonstration project by early October.
Dominion is offering to cover 100% of the incremental cost for the electric buses along with any/all necessary infrastructure upgrades (such charging and vehicle-to-grid infrastructure). School systems will save money through reduced energy and maintenance costs. It appears Dominion will retain ownership of the battery systems and the ability to leverage bus batteries — when they are not in use for transportation — for grid services.
Issues / Questions / Concerns / Considerations
As a long-time proponent of electrifying school buses (whether as plug-in hybrids or, more recently, straight EV), this announcement had/has me jumping and cheering from the bleachers. Wow. Could change the game in seriously tangible way in Virginia and across the nation!
As a long-time observer (and, well, dissatisfied customer) of Dominion Energy and its climate denial ways, skilled leveraging of The Virginia Way for excess profits, gaming of ‘green’ with (extremely) low quality Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), efforts to undermine distributed clean-energy and clean energy options , slow-rolling of offshore wind, etc …, alarm bells are ringing. Is this too good to be true? What is hidden in the fine print? The following are some initial thoughts, reflections, comments that will — hopefully — be considered by government officials, citizens’ groups, third-party organizations, and Dominion in the plan’s evolution and execution.
Will EV buses run on clean electrons? Dominion Virginia’s energy mix is heavily fossil-fuels: coal and, increasingly, fossil gas (where Dominion makes money off the fossil gas, the transportation of the fossil gas, and the electrons from burning the gas). While an EV running off this mix is far better than a diesel on local air pollution and likely better in regional/global pollution than a diesel bus, those calling for EV buses with climate pollution and carbon (and methane leakage) pollution reduction in mind know that the situation would be much better if the buses were running off clean (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) electrons. Dominion, as with the pipelines, is fighting hard to lock-in long-term polluting gas electricity projects on the backs of their ratepayers. Will Dominion leverage a 13,000 bus program for increased carbon-intensive electron sales? Or, will involved school districts (and Governor Northam and/or a Democratic Party-controlled legislature in 2020) secure commitments for Dominion to assure clean electrons for the clean buses?
Rapidity at odds with responsible government decision-making
Announced publicly on 30 August, Dominion is opening applications for the program on 5 September and will close “in early October”. For such a major project, with such significant implications, with almost none of the school districts having considered it seriously, this is incredibly fast track — and enough of a fast track that government entities are likely to be at a real disadvantage in negotiating and dealing with Dominion on how to move the program ahead.
While a serious advocate for EV buses as ‘the right choice’ and wishing accelerated action on climate change, this six-week period between announcement and end of applications is too tight. On first blush, it seems designed to have Dominion in the driver’s seat moving too fast for reasoned and reasonable oversight and due diligence on the part of government agencies and decision-makers. It should be extended … perhaps just by 45 days or so … while, on the government side, the Governor’s office should rapidly convene a specialist’s task force to delve into details and work with local communities and Dominion to identify and resolve potential(ly contentious) issues.
Request for Proposal / vendor selection
The Dominion proposal puts essentially all substantive decision-making with Dominion Energy staff. Are school districts/government agencies comfortable that a potentially opaque Dominion process will select their school bus manufacturer for decades to come? The battery provider? The V2G (vehicle-to-grid) technology? What is the appropriate set of roles and relationships in what will be perhaps the most significant public-private partnership in the Commonwealth for the decade (plus) to come? How will government officials (facilities’ directors? transportation officials? contract specialists? others …) play a role in these processes?
Prioritization of grid? District needs?
Dominion’s proposal has an initial plan for 50 buses to be in operation before the end of 2020. School systems will have to apply to be part of the program and “the final decision being evaluated on the locational benefit the batteries will bring to Dominion Energy’s electric system.” Honestly, there is logic for this. Yet, the “electric system” benefits are only a (small) part of the true benefit equation. How do school district priorities (and enthusiasm, willingness to pay part of the costs, …) play into the equation? Environmental justice issues?
True fiscal implications? There is much uncertain, at this time, as to the actual financial implications. Here are two thoughts/issue areas.
What are school districts giving up in the bargain?
There is a huge bargain for school districts here: Dominion will cover 100% of the extra costs for EV buses (both the buses and V2G infrastructure) and the school district’s will have significantly lower bus operating costs with better performing students. YEAH!
However, there are business reasons for Dominion to propose this program (beyond the massive one of transferring transportation energy use from oil firms (not Dominion revenue) to electrons (Dominion’s business) and government decision-makers should have a sense of those ‘reasons’ before this project goes forward and how those impact local government/the school districts. For example:
Many large electricity consumers have significant ‘demand charges’. Batteries, behind the grid, can be used to manage electricity demands from the grid and lower this costs. Since Dominion will own the batteries, this financial benefit won’t be there.
Amid heavy demand periods, places that can reduce their demand on the grid (by reducing energy usage, running generators, or using stored electrons) can generate significant revenue.
Batteries, hooked to the grid, can provide significant ‘grid services’ — such as maintaining/improving the grid quality and this service has a calculable (commercially viable) value. Again, since Dominion will own the batteries, this potential financial benefit stream won’t be there.
Batteries can be used for arbitrage: buying electrons when cheap and plentiful, and selling them back when more valuable. Again, since Dominion will own the batteries, this potential financial benefit stream won’t be there.
Batteries can be used to enhance the value of on-site (renewable energy) generation, potentially reducing costs by using those on-site electrons to run operations rather than buying from Dominion. Again, since Dominion will own the batteries, this potential financial benefit stream won’t be there.
There are serious value streams here … there is a bottom-line financial set of reasons that an electric bus program is attractive to Dominion. Those reasons don’t preclude this from being a smart ‘win-win-win-win’ for students, community budgets, pollution reductions, and Dominion stockholders. It just is incumbent on government decision-makers to understand the full context of the deal before running after something with decades of implications.
Actual financial requirements from rate-payers:
Dominion is taking the initial $26M out of its cash reserves (from excess profits) for a 50-bus demonstration project. (Note: for a separate post, the first year program should be bigger than 50 buses … perhaps 3-5 times larger, with rapid ramping of the program in the years to come.) Stated is a projected required for a $1/month service charge to support the program over the long-term. With about 2.6M customers in the relevant service areas, this translates into about $30M a year in additional charges. With a plan for 13,000 buses over a ten year period, perhaps in the range of over $2B (uncertain how fast, far prices will fall) in total acquisition costs just for the buses (perhaps another $100M or more for charging infrastructure), is this an honest figure (based on Dominion’s assessment of value streams to “the electric system”) or will there be a call for significantly higher charges once the program is locked in and well underway?
To be clear, the benefits in terms of street-level pollution reduction (diesel fumes and noise) likely have a benefit of over $12 per household per year in any event, but some sense of ‘true’ long-term fiscal implications are worth understanding before locking in any form of long-term commitment.
Why is Dominion understating payoffs?
Here is a scratching the head issue space. While Dominion does discuss many benefit streams (reduced carbon emissions, grid services, reduced energy costs and maintenance costs, improved safety), any serious student of the implications of moving from diesel to electric will understand that there is a significant understatement of value streams. Not mentioned, for example, are:
Reduced asthma rates, cancer risks, and other health issues —
Improved customer satisfaction (note: that is in the short kick-off video)
Now, an honest accounting of societal value would put those first two bullets (improved health and student performance) well above district maintenance savings. They are, bluntly, ‘big deal’ items and should be part of ‘selling’ the program. (“Your child will be healthier … test scores will go up … graduation rates ill improve …” All truthful, high-value items.)
Why wouldn’t Dominion wish to make the strongest case as to “why”?
Some concluding thoughts
Let’s be clear: YEAH! A week ago, few outside Dominion had any idea of how major and potentially game-changing this proposal would be. The benefits of electric buses are huge … for the ratepayers, the students, the communities, for the planet, for … Even if school districts were not to, over a decade period, save a penny, an accelerated move to all electric buses would be the right thing to do.
And, having Dominion making profits from doing the right thing is, well, something to applaud — even with a standing ovation. As per above, there are reasons for alarms bells and concerns.
However, as per the questions and issues above, thoughtful and responsible governance should mean going into this with eyes wide open … and working hard (and fast) to gain understanding of real implications across the board to foster a program that delivers for the common good while allowing business to profit reasonably from their competent management and execution of such a program.
August 29th, 2019 · Comments Off on Mobilizing momentum for cleaner, cheaper school busing (Electric School Buses, Fairfax County, VA, edition)
The Wheels on the Electric School Bus Go Round and Round — with less pollution (MOF leaders, School Board Member Pat Hynes, and School Board candidate Karl Fritsch are on the Electric School Bus campaign bus) (Photo: A Siegel)
Up front, electric school buses have become the right choice for school system capital investment programs now, because they provide:
Improved performance (better acceleration, quieter, smoother) that contributes to
Improved student (and driver and community) health due to
Significantly reduced pollution (at street, regional, and global levels) with
Much lower ownership costs.
While the benefits are clear, there are bureaucratic obstacles (driving change is hard — though the school staff is clearly interested in exploring EV buses) and, even more importantly, a financing challenge found across the clean energy/efficiency world: while ownership costs are far lower, the upfront costs are higher. This last is perhaps the key challenge: how to secure financing to cover those higher upfront costs and use long term savings to pay off the loan. Many electric bus manufacturers have such financing programs (such as Proterra, Virginia’s preferred electric bus provider, and BYD, the world’s largest electric bus manufacturer). With over 1,600 buses, FCPS should be able to secure such a financing package if it were to commit to a serious program of electrifying the bus fleet.
While the speakers are well worth listening to (see video, below) in full, some key points/highlights.
MOF Fairfax’s Julie Kimmel opened the event and laid out some of the key truths:
Diesel buses are a threat to children’s health … and to the larger environment.
Real-world experience shows significant cost savings through using electric buses — perhaps as much as $175,000 in savings over the 15 year life cycle of a normal bus.
School Board Member Pat Hynes spoke strongly about the value of electric buses and the necessity for moving forward and that the School Board wants this logical next step to adding solar to school rooftops. Hynes spoke to a just forming Joint Environmental Task Force (JET), where the School Board and County Supervisors will coordinate for best paths forward — EV buses as a logical item for the JET to tackle.
Hynes’ key concern: that upfront cost and how to finance it.
EV buses cost three times as much to buy as diesel buses. As a public entity, we have to be good stewards of public resources and that upfront cost is a barrier that we can’t cross alone.
Hynes spoke of working with Dominion Power to see if and how they might engage to help leap that upfront capital cost challenge.
Delegate Keam demonstrated his off-the-cuff ability to communicate powerfully, discussing how he had seen Moms Demand Action in Richmond earlier in the day battling for gun-sense action over Republican opposition, and then being in the room with Mothers Out Front Fairfax on electric vehicles. “We all know that when mothers get involved, things get done.”
While Keam discussed climate issues and the need for serious action, the most striking (to me, at least) was the powerful relationship of electric school buses to his family’s experience. As he summarized in a note to me,
I have two kids who attend public schools right here in Vienna, and when they were small, they both took school buses everyday. They both also suffer from various allergies and asthma, so it was hard for them at times to sit on a bus that emits diesel fuel emissions and other toxics into the air. Converting school buses from fossil fuels to electric power will not only help our environment, but also our children’s health.
Providence (Fairfax County) School Board candidate Karl Frisch has laid out his support for electric buses, as part of his Green New Deal for FCPS, since the beginning of his candidacy. Karl highlighted that an EV bus program would create an economic development opportunity — with a major County/FCPS purchase, part of the terms could be setting up infrastructure in the County to support EV buses throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Karl powerfully stated a truth about the climate crisis and political responsibility. As he summarized it in a note to me,
I am incredibly grateful that students and parents are leading the fight against climate change in Fairfax County. We can’t wait on Washington to get the job done — not while Trump and his fossil fuel friends are in office. Instead, every level of government must do its part to address this humanity-threatening crisis. On the school board, I will make electrifying our buses and greening our schools a top priority.
MOF Fairfax leader Bobby Monacella closed out the event with a thoughtful and passionate relating of electric buses to being a mother and demonstrating, in a tangible way, to her teenage daughter her understanding of climate risks for her daughter’s generation (for today’s FCPS students) and that she is acting to help reduce those risks.
“…made us realize we simply can’t buy one more diesel school bus because it locks us into 15 years of fossil fuel emissions and our kids future can’t afford that. Here is something we can do to show that we understand the dire consequences of climate change and that we’re working with them to have a livable future. It’s such a concrete way to show them. The buses are right in front of them every day. It’s a great teachable moment for sustainability but it’s also a show of support and caring their future.”
The initial phase of the electric school bus deployment aims to have 50 buses fully operational within Dominion Energy’s Virginia service territory by the end of 2020 – all without any change in prices paid by customers. Phase two of the project, with state approval, would expand the program to bring 1,000 electric school buses online by 2025.
And, to have 100% of the school buses within Dominion territory electric by 2030.
August 26th, 2019 · Comments Off on Climate Hawk announces in Iowa Senate race
A “Climate hawk is [someone] … who work[s] for aggressive steps regarding climate change and clean energy.” Such as, Jay Inslee is a climate Hawk.
A Climate Hawk is also a way to describe someone who comes to understanding climate change implications and the necessity for action through a national security lens.
A Climate Hawk understands that climate change is a threat to our safety and security. Climate Hawks favor taking aggressive action to neutralize the threat. Many Climate Hawks are environmentalists, but one does not need to be an environmentalist to be a Climate Hawk.
Republicans are afraid to ever stand up to Donald Trump.
And, DC Democrats aren’t bold enough to confront the climate crisis, the health-care industry, and Wall Street.
Franken understands how the climate crisis is hitting Iowa (with 100, 500, and 1000 year floods happening with unnerving frequency destroying homes and devastating crops; weather weirding creating great uncertainty in (and damage to) Iowa’s farming economy) and embraces how Iowa could truly be ground zero for boosting the economy through aggressive climate action (from exporting wind electricity; to compensating farmers for sequestering carbon; to leveraging Iowa engineering and manufacturing resources for creating and building tomorrow’s energy solutions; to …).
Franken also understands how catastrophic climate change threatens national security. As Deputy Commander of African Command, Franken saw national security implications in real-time — from worsened droughts fostering conflicts (and threats like Somali piracy) to disrupted agricultural economies helping to drive increased refugee flows (such as into Europe). He has learned from experts, like the CNA Military Advisory Board, and considered the strategic risks from unchecked climate chaos … while gaining appreciation of how national security can be strengthened through climate solutions like better built and more resilient infrastructure with distributed clean energy systems and enhanced energy efficiency.
I just had to google "Mike Franken" to see if he's real.
He's real! This guy is a retired 3-star Admiral, from rural Iowa, postgrad degree in physics, took courses at MIT & Brookings Institute. What!? I mean, that's a resume.
I know you agree that our mission to defeat climate change must continue to be central to our national discussion — and must be the top priority for our next president. But I’ve concluded that my role in that effort will not be as a candidate to be our next president. pic.twitter.com/Kp8WejuVJy
Unlike many others who have or will soon drop out, Jay Inslee advanced an important cause and enhanced his personal reputation by running. He should feel good about himself.
Just want to say @JayInslee is a fantastic governor who has made progress on so many issues – wages, health care, paid leave and of course, climate. I am grateful for his fight on climate and other issues and look forward to all he will do as Governor.
And, good to see that candidate after candidate is thanking / praising Inslee publicly.
Thank you @JayInslee for fighting every day to make sure that climate change remains a primary focus of this election. Climate change is real and it's a crisis—and I will keep fighting alongside you to take bold action before it is too late.
Few leaders have done more to shine a light on the climate crisis than @JayInslee. His voice will be missed in this primary but I know he will continue this fight.
Congratulations to @JayInslee on his impactful campaign to bring the climate crisis to the forefront of the national conversation. There is no more important issue facing humanity. Together we will work to pass a Green New Deal and create millions of jobs.
Governor @JayInslee made the climate crisis the centerpiece of his campaign and our nation is better because of it. Thank you for the bold ideas you brought to this race Governor.
.@JayInslee is a visionary leader and a friend. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his wisdom, his commitment, and his basic goodness. Thank you. We will continue the fight against climate change.
MJB (May Jay Be) listened to by the Democratic Party and the eventual nominee … and MJB our “Climate Tsar” (whether as Secretary of Energy, EPA Advisor, in a new Cabinet position, or …) in the next Administration because his climate plan(s) is(are) truly substantive, truly good, actually to the scale of the crisis, and doable.
What I pledge, is to BLJ: Be Like Jay and battle for societal moves to Act on Climate with the seriousness and alacrity required.
So early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and organize. Together, we will continue the fight to defeat the climate crisis.
