— by Tom Owens —
From my perspective, there is the ¨Inconvenient Truth¨ about OPALCO’s electric energy (or any electric energy on the WECC grid). Electric energy is far from clean and on the margin (for new loads or new conservation) the generating plants that increase or decrease to meet these changes are the most expensive plants on the grid. Those plants are the fossil fired plants.
When someone tells me an issue is very ¨complex¨, I get the feeling that they think I lack the intelligence to understand and I should just believe them. In most cases, this is true. It is not true on subjects I know something about. So, let’s reduce this ¨complex¨ issue to a few simple questions and see where we come out.
1. How can OPALCO electricity, when it is being saved by conservation, reduce CO2; and when OPALCO electricity, when it is being used for your new EV or any new electric load, cause little or no CO2 pollution?
Both of these statements can not be true. After all, it is the same electricity. The use of an amount of electricity has to have the exact opposite effect of conserving the same amount of electricity. So, one of these statements has to be false. It makes no difference where you are on the electric grid, conservation reduces the use of fossil fuel generation and new loads increase the use of fossil fuel generation. There is no free lunch here.
2. How does the electric grid respond when OPALCO customers conserve electicity? Does BPA reduce generation in the federal hydro system ?
When BPA sees reduced loads (when OPALCO customers conserve or generate their own electricity with roof top solar) there will be additional electricity available on the grid. BPA will use this electricity by selling it (and making money) to more expensive plants operating on the grid.These plants can then lower their expensive production and save money. These are the fossil fuel fired plants. Hydro generation (very low cost) will remain at full available capacity. So the conserved energy slides right up the cost scale to reduce generation at the most expensive fossil fuel plants. To do otherwise would increase the overall cost of generation on the grid. If BPA’s cost go up, OPALCO’s bill from BPA will incease. I don’t think anyone wants to go there.
3. How does the grid respond when OPALCO adds new load to the electric system? Does BPA simply generate more electricity from the hydro system ?
When BPA sees increased loads (when OPALCO customers add new load) there will be a deficit of electricty on the grid. BPA will already be at full available capacity (it is a very low cost resource) and cannot increase hydro generation. BPA will have to go out and buy, or generate, from non-hydro sources, this energy. This new requirement will be met by increasing generation from the plants not operating at their full available capacity. Remember, all lower cost resources, such as BPA’s hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and some natural gas plants, will be at full available capacity. The responding plants (and most expensive) will be fossil fuel fired plants. So the electricity needed to meet the new demand slides right up the cost scale to increase generation at the most expensive fossil fuel plants.
4. Can BPA direct energy from a particular power source (hydro) to OPALCO ?
From my experience working in the power industry for some 30 years, there is no physical way for BPA or any other utility to choose which power source goes to OPALCO or any other particular customer. The only exception is BPA’s direct current transmission line running between North Central Oregon and Los Angeles, and a few direct current interconnections with adjacent grids in the US. All other transmission is alternating current which can not be directed from one source to one particular load.
The Western 1\ 3 of the US, Alberta, British Columbia and a small portion of Baja California are all on the same electric grid (th WECC). All loads and all generation plants are electrically connected by a vast electric transmission system (the grid). This is where the vast majority of electric energy comes from to meet our individual needs. The energy produced to supply this grid in 2014 came from resouces that were 26 percent hydro, 26 percent coal, 28 percent natural gas and 20 percent other (nuclear, solar, wind and other sources), (WECC Status of the Interconnection 2014). In my view, this is the mix of ¨fuel¨ we used in 2014 right here in San Juan County. More than half was fossil fuel. It will be interesting to see the ¨fuel¨ mix for 2015. Using the entire US ¨fuel¨mix to calculate carbon footprint, as the US EPA does, would be even more dominated by fossil fuel.
US EPA calculates CO2 emissions using the nation wide grid ¨fuel¨ mix. Governor Inslee likes to use the state wide ¨fuel¨ mix. Mayor Murray of Seattle likes using their local ¨fuel¨mix to claim to be the ¨cleanest¨city in America, and they do have their own hydro generation. OPALCO likes BPA ¨fuel¨mix. Everyone wants to be as ¨green¨as possible. This is politically expedient these days. The fact is, the electric grid is interconnected and if one place is real ¨green¨, another place has to be real dirty. Having the right answer only matters when you are trying to calculated (approximately) how much a conservation effort or an increased electric load will impact your carbon footprint. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, you use LESS electricity, wherever you are on the grid. If you use more electricity, you increase your carbon footprint, no matter where you are on the grid.
We are all in this boat together (the electric grid boat). I believe any steps to reduce energy consumption anywhere will reduce CO2. Any new loads will increase CO2. Any steps to use less polluting energy sources can reduce CO2, but be real sure of the numbers. Reducing CO2 is vitally important as we are all in the same atmospheric boat!
Mr. Owens’ dispute with OPALCO’s claim of providing clean energy revolves around the difference between consuming clean energy as claimed by OPALCO, and causing the consumption of fossil energy elsewhere which OPALCO neither disclaims nor disputes; OPALCO’s area of concern is the San Juan Islands. This difference is important. Let’s look at it:
1. OPALCO’s claim of clean energy consumption arises because its power is most directly traceable to BC Hydro’s power purchased by BPA. By “traceable” I don’t mean that’s what a piece of paper says, I mean that the route between BC Hydro and where BPA delivers power to OPALCO has the lowest resistance (technically in the case of AC called “impedance”) to the flow of power, which like water seeking the lowest level, is not just sometimes by always followed by the electric current. This particular situation is somewhat unique, but the proximity of source to point of delivery is so short (unlike what is spread throughout the grid), that this rather unusual situation exists in the case of OPALCO. Yes, taken as a whole, Mr. Owens is right that the grid has a mixture of power on it. The “average fuel mix has a long history and is subject to distortion in particular cases. It is usable only in the largest sense. But that fossil fuel-mixed power, even though connected via the same grid that is also connected to OPALCO’s delivery point, doesn’t go to OPALCO because its lowest impedance circuits make it flow elsewhere. Engineers refer to this effect as being what impedance electric current “sees.” We’re literally following electrons here. But measuring circuit impedance tells you where energy is flowing the same way the slope of a river tells you which way water is going to go, even though the river may be connected to another river system. In my opinion, the argument that the energy OPALCO uses is “clean” is a sound argument.
2. But Mr. Owens also argues that the use of even “clean” power causes someone else to have to use fossil fueled power because as he says, after the clean power is accounted for by use, the next resource drawn upon will inevitably be fossil fueled power. This is his causal argument. There are two problems with this argument.
A. The first is that this assumes an inelastic system, that is, for every additional watt consumed, a new source of energy must be added to the grid. The sources supplying the grid are far more elastic than that. Additional generation is added only when a large source fails or a large load is added. By “large,” I mean involving an amount in the tens of megawatts. This will not happen just because people in San Juan County charge their EVs or their heat pumps or even resistance heaters turn on.
B. The second problem arises from Mr. Owens’ treatment of conservation, the value of which I wholeheartedly agree with him. Mr. Owens is right. The only strictly coldly rational response to the possibility of causing someone else not to use fossil fueled energy by consuming clean energy is not to use any energy at all. However, civilization long ago chose to use thermal and hydro energy to power its industries, with the result that even if an OPALCO member is not using fossil fueled energy, someone else is. I’ve seen no claim by OPALCO that this isn’t so: the use of clean power by OPALCO members (see Item #1 above) does not mean that no one else will or might, as a result, directly or indirectly end up using fossil fuels. This is not an OPALCO issue. It means that somewhere else, someone needs to get their act together concerning their own source of power … or conserve.
And Mr. Owens rightly points out that conservation is everyone’s issue because we are indeed all in this together.
Thanks for your input Bill.
I don’t have a dispute with OPALCO. I would just like to see them using the correct story about their energy.
OPALCO’s story is that their energy is clean when you use it, but dirty when you conserve it. You can not have it both ways, it is either clean all the time or dirty all the time. After all it is the same energy! The truth is that it is dirty all the time. It is that simple, no matter what your other arguments are.
I have spent a bit more than 30 years in the power business. I have seen how the power grid works and have been in charge of dispatching power plants and power contract resources to meet utility loads. In short, I am very famiiar with how this works.
If you take a closer look at your path argument from BC Hydro to OPALCO, you will find that there are some major loads in between. The first is Vancover BC and the second is Bellingham, Washington. You can also check out what generation exists along the path that you feel give OPALCO clean energy. There are several combustion turbine plants along the way; Sumas being the largest. BC Hydro also had (don’t know if it still exist) a large thermal plant along your path; Burrard. BC Hydro sells lots of excess hydro to the US. This comes from their rights to half the down stream benefits (produced due to BC Hydro’s damns on the upper Columbia in Canada making down stream US damns more efficient)generated at the US Columbia River damns. These plants are not along your path to OPALCO, they are along the Columbia River. So I don’t agree with your argument.
You say it not OPALCO’s problem that their use of clean hydro causes someone else to use dirty fossil fuel. Well who’s problem is it? If more CO2 goes into the atmosphere, I would say it is everyone’s problem.
Use less electricity (or any enegy) and you produce less CO2. Use more electricity (or any enegy) and you produce more CO2. Living in San Juan County does not let a person escape this truth.
Why not just keep this simple? Two plus two has to equal four.
Theresa Haynie from OPALCO: We have been directly discussing this very matter with Mr. Owens over the past four months. With all due respect, after reviewing Mr. Owens’ theory with energy experts, BPA, and knowledgeable staff and Board members, we believe our statements to be correct and that Mr. Owens has incorrectly attributed the physics of power distribution as they apply to OPALCO.
Mr. Owens says that “energy is clean when you use it, but dirty when you conserve it.” OPALCO energy is very clean both ways, and getting cleaner. Energy is a precious resource, so we conserve to reduce wasted energy. Electricity, applied efficiently, is the lowest cost and cleanest alternative to fossil fuels for heating and driving.
1. OPALCO’s fuel mix is based on BPA actual generation and further improved by local member generation. As a BPA customer, OPALCO contractually receives BPA Tier 1 power fuel mix. Any augmentation of the system to meet customer loads is a market purchase that may or may not contain coal. When BPA reports their fuel mix, the state of Washington assigns a percentage of those market purchases as being generated from coal. The amount of market purchases fluctuate depending on the water year.
2. Over time, coal is ramping down to zero, which further improves the already low OPALCO greenhouse gas contributions.
3. Noted energy expert Dan Kammen, during a recent presentation to our island community, said “With over 70% of the islands carbon footprint coming from transportation and heating, Co-op members have a unique opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint and energy bill by ‘fuel switching’ from fossil fuels – propane, heating oil and gasoline – to cleaner, lower cost OPALCO electricity.”
4. And this gets better. The power for San Juan County most predictably comes from BC hydro dams by way of the BPA Sedro-Wooley substation, the path of least resistance. Coal power is generated further away. There are enormous loads in between San Juan County and any coal powered generation. The impedance between San Juan County and Montana is much higher than between San Juan County and BC hydro, or any BPA dams for that matter (100 miles versus 1,000 miles). Coal power is not magically bypassing all the loads in between and being routed to San Juan County. It’s unlikely that any incremental San Juan County load at any time is even measurable at Montana or Wyoming coal generation sites.
After reviewing your theory, one independent islander with energy industry experience remarked “My conclusion – OPALCO’s power is at worst 99 and 44/100ths percent fossil free, its market is not large enough to swing major capacity beyond what hydro it is presently entitled to.”
We fully support your call for Co-op members to conserve energy. As you know OPALCO, more than any other energy provider or utility in the county, invests in numerous conservation programs and provides rebates to help members reduce their energy usage.
I really don’t [care] any more if my electricity comes from the La Brea tar pits. What I do care about is OPALCO cutting the fat from their operating expenses to slim down the “Cost of Service” because everyone knows obesity will kill you. I’m tired of hearing the same blah, blah, blah every time a member/owner questions or criticizes OPALCO. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
I’m already tired of subsidizing Broadband and I know this is just the beginning. I don’t care how much spin is put on it I don’t believe the numbers being put out there by OPALCO, I believe them to be much higher. I’m sick of hearing about the cost of the submarine cable that the money was set aside for years ago.
For once lets hear how OPALCO will cut operating expenses by 7% this year and another 7% next year.Tell us why, for the first time, capital credits were only paid out at 50% and how long it will really be before the other 50% is paid out and how many years you plan on doing this for. Let’s hear how close OPALCO/Rock Island came to what was projected in terms of actual paying broadband customers there were at the end of 2015. And what happened to LTE wireless? I remember Gray Cope questioning the business plan for this a year ago. What has the cost been so far and is there anything to show for it?
Nothing to see here, move along……….
And why did Mike Greene really leave?
Theresa?
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, we did discussed this at a meeting some months ago. I have offered to make a short presentation to the Board on my views. This has not been accepted and no reply was made.
My view is NOT that OPALCO energy is clean when you burn it and dirty when you conserve it. That is OPALCO’s position!!! Please take another look at this.
I have brought out a number of technical issues that are not easy to write about in an understandable way. I have given up on this approach.
Let’s boil this down to a simple question. How can OPALCO’s energy be clean when you use more BUT dirty when you conserve. After all, it is the same energy in both cases. That is not technical question, it is a logical question. It is OPALCO’s position that when you use more it comes from clean energy but when you conserve you save dirty energy. OPALCO’s energy is either clean all the time or dirty all the time.
Your view is that OPALCO’s energy is clean all the time. That would be great for promoting more use of energy. When it comes to conservation and renewables, since OPALCO’s energy is clean, NO CO2 réductions would occur. If this is true, why promote renewables? Lots of your customers have spent a lot of money to install solar systems. They did this to reduce CO2 emissions. Were they wrong? I believe they were VERY right. They produced some clean energy and saved some dirty energy and they live right here in San Juan County.
Coal produced 26 percent of the power needs for WECC in 2014. Hydro produced 26 percent, the same amount. In my view, reducing coal combustion is the first place to go to reduce CO2. So I strongly support using less coal. It is going to take a long time to get rid of coal. Coal plants in the WECC ran at a capacity factor of about 63 percent in 2014. That is a lot of energy.
Mr Kamman is right (in my view) when he says we can reduce CO2. He is wrong if the energy saved is only attributed to hydro, as hydro produces no CO2. So, to make Mr Kamman’s idea work, the energy saved must replace energy generated that produces CO2. That would be fossil fuel. If all your energy is clean, as you say, how can Mr Kamman be right?
I have responded to the BC Hydro path in my answer to Mr Appel. It really makes no difference which predictable path OPALCO’s energy comes from. We are all interconnected and we all share responsiblity for the CO2 produced by that system.
Let’s assume OPALCO only receives clean energy. When we use more of the good clean stuff, someone else that was using the hydro that we now require, will have to find energy from somewhere else. Remember, that the power system operators will be making every effort to use all the cheap energy that is available first and the most expensive last. Hydro is very cheap. Fossil fuel is far more expensive. So all the good clean hydro would be being used. Where is the displaced load going to find more energy? It will come from fossil fuel.
You can simply claim that this is not OPALCO’s problem, as Mr Appel does in his reply. But if it is not our problem, whose problem is it? Seems to me the action that set off this chain to increase the consumption of fossil fuel started with the increased load right here in San Juan County. I, for one, think we are responsible. Using more energy here results, in the end, in more fossil fuel being burned and more CO2 being produced.
Your independent energy expert, Mr Appel, believes that OPALCO’s energy is 99.44 percent clean (sort of like Ivory soap in the good old days). If this is true, why does OPALCO take the position that your energy is 93 percent clean? Which is true?
Your impendence argument does not really matter, in my view. When more energy is required here in San Juan County and we if have a ¨lock¨ on clean hydro, someone else will not be able to use that hydro. Just follow the energy requirement up the cost ladder. Eventually, someone will wind up with more fossil fuel produced electricity.
Why do you support Co-Op members conserving energy? If the energy they save is clean, no CO2 is saved. But if you will buy my view that new loads or the reduction of energy by conservation works it way to the most expensive fossil fuel plants, conservation is a great idea. It really is a great idea.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope lots of people take the time to read all this.
I am a member of OPALCO and am not in any other way associated with OPALCO. And if I were, I expect I would be fired by now.
Darlene?
Good questions.
The other stuff is really a lot of words. I think it is important for OPALCO to get its story correct. That is why I am just asking one question.
How can OPALCO’s energy be clean when you use more (producing little or no CO2) but dirty (saving CO2) when you use less (conserve)?
Yeah Tom, I know. I just had one of those crazy moments. Once again I saw a response from Theresa (and if not her it would have been Suzanne) that doesn’t answer a question. The tone in some of the responses is inappropriate also as you can see here. https://www.salishrocks.org/page.php?type=item&item_handle=1452523888&menu_type=forum&return=36&comment_handle=1452537121#1452537121
Perhaps it’s time to rethink using the propane fireplace as the main heating source in my house. Our opalco bill for last month was at an all-time high and the price of propane has dropped substantially.