Guest Opinion | Where is OPALCO Heading, and Why?

— from Tom Owens —

Friends of the San Juans recently published its Community Conversation about growing local economies, ecologies and connections. It is well worth your time to read this information. It contained an article by OPALCO explaining how they plan to grow local energy abundance and resilience in San Juan County. I think this article gives us a view of where OPALCO is heading. Is this the right direction and can we afford this path?

OPALCO contends “we have some of the cleanest, low-cost energy around”

OPALCO claims conservation and solar production here reduces carbon emissions. They also claim that using electricity here does not produce carbon emissions. How can this be, isn’t it the same electricity saved and used? If we have the cleanest energy around, how would there be any carbon reduction benefit to conservation or solar generation? Is this a contradiction? In fact, we have dirty energy that largely comes from fossil fired generating plants that supply power to the electric grid and the electric grid is where our energy comes from. Conservation and solar production both reduce emissions, even here! Using electricity here does increase emissions, even here! The cost of electricity for customers of our nearest neighbor (Puget) for loads like mine would be about 30% less from Puget than OPALCO. So how is OPALCO energy low-cost?

“OPALCO is planning an energy future to support a vision …. where efficiency, local renewable power, and low carbon impact are a model for the rest of the world.”

We are a very small distribution cooperative. Trying to be a model for the rest of the world could involve the implementation and testing of untried new technologies. Is our small distribution cooperative in a position to be successful at this? Can we afford the costs? Why not just try to be a very good small distribution cooperative?

OPALCO presents a graph – “72% reduction in carbon emissions from 2015 levels” by switching 100% of all transportation and heating loads to electricity that has big implications.

What would be the cost of such a reduction in CO2? Is this really fully necessary? Would this get us to global cooling? What will be the new generation resources necessary to supply this increase in electricity demand? Renewables? Will the grid remain stable with intermittent and unreliable renewables?

A very rough calculation of switching all of our fleet of 56,000,000 cars in the WECC (our grid control area) to cars running on electricity would increase electric demand for electricity by 22% over 2015 levels. If you add the switch to full electrification of heating loads, you are looking a huge increase in electricity demand. If this new load is met with renewables (as I think the graph implies), how are we going to have a stable electric grid? How much are we going to be paying for electricity?

Is this too much of a good thing? Why not a switch to electric transportion and heatimg of say 20% or 40% or 60% of the cars/heaters?

OPALCO says “…a typical EV, driven 10,000 miles, costs about $200 in OPALCO electricity versus $1,200 in gasoline”

True, from an economic perspective, EV’s cost a lot less to run by using electricity instead of gasoline. They also help OPALCO sell more electricity without making new investments in its system, another good thing. An EV buyer enjoys generous tax credits, making then even better for the buyer. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to pick up the cost of the tax credits in our tax bills. But they are cheaper to run.

Then comes the sales pitch, “…. And emits 40 times less carbon.”

How can this statement be true? Have you ever wondered where the electricity comes from to “fuel” the EV? In 2015, about 31% of the electricity we all used (across our interconnected region) came from natural gas, 26% from coal, 21% from hydro, 8% from nuclear, 6% from wind, 3% from solar, 2% from geothermal and 2% from other sources. That is 58% from fossil fuel, 21% from hydro and11% from renewables (nuclear and other sources make up other 10%). OPALCO has no special rights to clean hydro from any source, so wouldn’t OPALCO’s energy be 58% fossil fuel? How can that translate into “40 times less carbon”?

But unfortunately, the story gets worse. New loads, like a new EV, must be supplied by generation plants that have available capacity to produce more electricity. Bringing generating plants on and off the grid is done based on incremental costs, the lowest cost units on first and the highest cost units on last. All the low incremental cost generating units (that would be hydro, wind, solar and nuclear) are already running at full capacity supplying existing loads. The next highest incremental cost generating units are natural gas fired and they would also be running. The highest cost units are coal and are most likely to have spare generating capacity to supply new loads. So wouldn’t your new EV likely be running on coal, not hydro?

A Nissan Leaf running on coal is about equivalent to a gasoline car getting 35mpg in terms of carbon emissions. So, if your car is getting better than 35 mpg, wouldn’t your gasoline fueled car be cleaner than a Nissan Leaf?

OPALCO says “Most of our electricity comes from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). It is low cost, clean and reliable”

The electricity that BPA produces is low cost, mostly hydro and nuclear and is very reliable. That electricity is put onto the vast electric grid that serves much of the western third of the US. OPALCO’s electricity comes from that electric grid, not directly from BPA. There is no isolated transmission path from any BPA dam to OPALCO. So how would OPALCO get electricity generated mostly by hydro?

Under OPALCO’s Full Requirements Customer Contract with BPA, OPALCO receives many services. BPA supplies all of OPALCO’s energy requirements to the electric grid, not to OPALCO. BPA meets all of OPALCO’s load swings. BPA must maintain frequency and voltage in their control area by having generating units ready to meet sudden load changes (spinning reserve). These are all tasks that OPALCO cannot economically provide for itself. The undersea cable, owned by BPA not OPALCO, that connects OPALCO’s system to the vast electric grid is extremely important. It is in fact, OPALCO’s life line. How would we get electric service here without BPA?

The BPA contract makes no mention of providing any customer, including OPALCO, with electricity from a particular generation resource. It defines and provides a means for OPALCO to pay for the electricity that OPALCO takes from the electric grid and the services that BPA provides. Where then is OPALCO’s contractual right to electricity coming from hydro plants?

OPALCO wants to embark on a plan that is based on “… other sources and strategies which would allow for greater flexibility and independence.”

The OPALCO Integrated Resource Plan, done last year, forecasts that OPALCO’s renewable resources (mostly solar) will account for 20% of its energy needs at the end of the study period (some 18 years from now). So how much independence will the “other sources and strategies” buy us in terms of independence? At what cost?

Independence from BPA and from the services that BPA provides, seems to me, to be very far in the future, (assuming BPA continues to supply the public utilities in this region). In fact, independence from BPA is not close to reality. Is it worth spending rate payer money now to accomplish this plan?

OPALCO claims “At some point in the next few years, costs (of renewables) will hit grid parity and things like solar and tidal will cost less to scale up”.

The cost of renewables should include the cost of making renewable electricity reliable. These costs might be batteries, hydro pump storage and most likely fossil fuel generation plants. None of these are cheap. Let’s include all the costs before we consider decisions to investment in renewables. Can we be sure we can maintain our all-important grid stability? Can we afford the full costs? This is not to say renewable are not now and in the future going to be important. Let’s just be realistic on how we get there.

OPALCO want to “moves toward full electrification of heating and transportation, it is preparing for significantly more intermittent local renewables.”

OPALCO relies on BPA for managing intermittent load swings, regardless of whether they are load increases (or decreases) or intermittent local renewable generation changes. So the major work necessary for more intermittent local renewables is being done and will be done by BPA. OPALCO, in conjunction with its community solar project, is putting in a 200 kw battery (at a cost of about $1,000,000, paid for by a grant (which is paid for by us taxpayers)) to help balance its 199 kw solar output. How else will OPALCO manage intermittent load swings? At what cost?

And don’t forget, new loads, like full electrification of heating and transportation, just increases and thus prolongs the need for the fossil fuel plants. Are we prepared to produce more CO2, not less?

OPALCO presents folks that are happy with “… the knowledge that they are not putting out tailpipe emissions.”

So true, they are putting out no tailpipe emissions. But the electricity that they use to “fuel” their new EV is coming from generating plants on the electric grid. For new loads, these plants will likely be coal (see above explanation). So, no tailpipe emissions, but there are lots of new coal plant emissions. How happy are we with that?

OPALCO promotes energy efficiency/conservation.

This is all good! In fact, conservation and efficiency reduces the amount of high cost generation on the grid because the high cost units are the first to be taken off line when loads decline. And that generation is coal! This is true despite the fact that OPALCO claims to have mostly clean electricity here. Great, to say the least!

OPALCO looks for hydro to “Firm(s) power to balance intermittent renewables year-round.”

Due to power supply obligations to the public utilities, flood control obligations, shipping requirements and fish restrictions on the Columbia River System, there is very little if any hydro left to balance intermittent renewables. What is left is used by BPA (to balance loads for its customers like OPALCO) and is sold to other utilities (to balance their customer loads). There are no new hydro projects in the works. So how is this strategy going to work?

OPALCO sees tidal energy as “Firmer and more predictable than intermittent solar.”

Tidal flows are predictable but very intermittent. Tidal flows vary every hour of every day and day to day and season to season. How is this any firmer? So they are not firm steady sources of electricity. Tidal energy’s variable production must be filled in by other resources. Where will that come from?

OPALCO sees energy storage as “Help(ing) to maintain grid reliability by smoothing intermittent resources like solar, and peaks in energy demand….”

To eliminate the swings in load that OPALCO sees could make it necessary to have a very large system of batteries. Now, BPA takes these swings in load for OPALCO and we pay for this service. Are the costs of our own energy storage worth it to reduce use of the BPA load following product?

OPALCO admits that maintaining grid reliability for renewables “Adds cost to local renewables.”

Very true and I hope I do not have to pay these costs in my OPALCO bill. Why not let the renewable energy producer pay those costs? Why not put the cost responsibility where the problem starts?

OPALCO “…is developing a large community solar array that members can subscribe to later this year”

That is just great and, to me, makes some sense, depending on who gets stuck with the tab. I think it is to be about 199kw. Will a subscriber own part of the project? How long will the subscription last? Will repair and maintenance costs be paid by subscribers or the non-subscriber rate payers? Will the cost of the battery system be included? Will the cost of subscription be the whole cost of the solar project or just a portion? Will a large portion of the project cost be paid for by the rest of us rate payers in yet higher rates?

Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to place this and future community solar projects east of the mountains where there is lot more sun? Maybe for the same investment we would get significantly more solar electricity. Transmission issues would arise but perhaps they are less costly than the increase in solar generation that would ensue. Why not give that some thought?