All,
Thought I would start this new thread since there is periodic news made concerning this, and it would be good to track this so that we can collectively have some idea of what implications these laws will have going forward. The current RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) was first established in 2002, and modified several times since then. It requires 33% renewable energy by 2020. I periodically post in the "Solar Happenings" thread about the almost daily increases being seen in the renewables % of total electricity generation. I'll start posting that information here since it is California specific, and includes more than just solar. For program details see this page.
The L.A. Times had a recent story, seen here about some recent State Senate and Assembly action to codify into law some things the Governor discussed in his recent state of the state speech. The extent of it is pretty significant, even by California standards, so I thought I would detail some of the items. I think that some of these will absolutely impact large scale energy storage going forward. There was another link I saw for Tesla news that showed that one of the companies that was supplying utility scale energy storage selected Tesla as their battery supplier, due to the enormous cost advantage. See that story here. Thats for 500MWh of storage. The storage requirements per year as identified here are: 2014=200MW, 2016=270, 2018=365, 2020=490. Those numbers each represent additional "added" capacity, not total capacity.
The legislation highlights are:
SB350: Increases the 33% by 2020 renewable mandate to 50% by 2030.
SB350: Also decreases gasoline use by 50% and doubles energy efficiency in older buildings.
SB32: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
SB185: Requires the two state pension funds, the countries largest public funds, to divest from coal.
AB1288: Eliminates the expiration date for the cap-and-trade program.
SB788: Bans new offshore drilling in the Tranquillon Ridge in the Santa Barbara Channel, existing rigs allowed to continue producing.
One of the opponents of the renewable mandate said: "We have a very lofty and noble goal," said Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-San Dimas). "But other than feeling good about it, what does it accomplish?"
I would answer that what it is going to accomplish is that it is going to spur development of new technologies to not only vastly reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used, but also to start moving in the direction of allowing for more decentralized power generation and distribution. As the cost of these systems comes down, as it absolutely will with scale, the number of places where it can be economically deployed will skyrocket. There are so many places in the world where electricity is either not available, or extremely unreliable. This will allow many of those areas to implement a solar/storage solution that is able to provide 24/7 reliable power. That is a complete game changer from a business standpoint, which is why Tesla is going "all in" in the energy storage business.
Opponents can't seem to understand that while there are going to be jobs lost drilling for oil, running refineries, and running filling stations, the new technologies being developed will create entire new industries. It's all about looking past the next quarterly report. We are not going to be burning oil "forever", so whats the point in waiting to start making the transition? Those same people who are losing their jobs will find better work building solar panels, working in the Giga-Factory, and designing and installing the micro-grid systems that we will be seeing more of in the immediate future. Hmmm, what pays better, pumping gas or designing micro-grid energy solutions? Either we do it, or someone else will do it, and we will be paying them for the technology.
In the California Legislature, the opponents of what is happening cannot stop the train. No way, not now, not ever. They can cry and moan all they want, but they are outgunned, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. They need to start being part of the solution, and by doing so maybe can once again become a relevant factor in running the state. At some point, because of the legislation mentioned above, the economic benefits and the social benefits will start significantly impacting the bottom line. Everyone understands the bottom line. Thats the tipping point. It's just a matter of when we reach it, not if.
RT
Thought I would start this new thread since there is periodic news made concerning this, and it would be good to track this so that we can collectively have some idea of what implications these laws will have going forward. The current RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) was first established in 2002, and modified several times since then. It requires 33% renewable energy by 2020. I periodically post in the "Solar Happenings" thread about the almost daily increases being seen in the renewables % of total electricity generation. I'll start posting that information here since it is California specific, and includes more than just solar. For program details see this page.
The L.A. Times had a recent story, seen here about some recent State Senate and Assembly action to codify into law some things the Governor discussed in his recent state of the state speech. The extent of it is pretty significant, even by California standards, so I thought I would detail some of the items. I think that some of these will absolutely impact large scale energy storage going forward. There was another link I saw for Tesla news that showed that one of the companies that was supplying utility scale energy storage selected Tesla as their battery supplier, due to the enormous cost advantage. See that story here. Thats for 500MWh of storage. The storage requirements per year as identified here are: 2014=200MW, 2016=270, 2018=365, 2020=490. Those numbers each represent additional "added" capacity, not total capacity.
The legislation highlights are:
SB350: Increases the 33% by 2020 renewable mandate to 50% by 2030.
SB350: Also decreases gasoline use by 50% and doubles energy efficiency in older buildings.
SB32: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
SB185: Requires the two state pension funds, the countries largest public funds, to divest from coal.
AB1288: Eliminates the expiration date for the cap-and-trade program.
SB788: Bans new offshore drilling in the Tranquillon Ridge in the Santa Barbara Channel, existing rigs allowed to continue producing.
One of the opponents of the renewable mandate said: "We have a very lofty and noble goal," said Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-San Dimas). "But other than feeling good about it, what does it accomplish?"
I would answer that what it is going to accomplish is that it is going to spur development of new technologies to not only vastly reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used, but also to start moving in the direction of allowing for more decentralized power generation and distribution. As the cost of these systems comes down, as it absolutely will with scale, the number of places where it can be economically deployed will skyrocket. There are so many places in the world where electricity is either not available, or extremely unreliable. This will allow many of those areas to implement a solar/storage solution that is able to provide 24/7 reliable power. That is a complete game changer from a business standpoint, which is why Tesla is going "all in" in the energy storage business.
Opponents can't seem to understand that while there are going to be jobs lost drilling for oil, running refineries, and running filling stations, the new technologies being developed will create entire new industries. It's all about looking past the next quarterly report. We are not going to be burning oil "forever", so whats the point in waiting to start making the transition? Those same people who are losing their jobs will find better work building solar panels, working in the Giga-Factory, and designing and installing the micro-grid systems that we will be seeing more of in the immediate future. Hmmm, what pays better, pumping gas or designing micro-grid energy solutions? Either we do it, or someone else will do it, and we will be paying them for the technology.
In the California Legislature, the opponents of what is happening cannot stop the train. No way, not now, not ever. They can cry and moan all they want, but they are outgunned, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. They need to start being part of the solution, and by doing so maybe can once again become a relevant factor in running the state. At some point, because of the legislation mentioned above, the economic benefits and the social benefits will start significantly impacting the bottom line. Everyone understands the bottom line. Thats the tipping point. It's just a matter of when we reach it, not if.
RT