Tropical Storm Hilary batters California solar Far from the most important effect of Tropical Storm Hilary, but the uncharacteristic California summer storm is suppressing CAISO solar well below typical August levels. Hilary is also muting California electricity demand
It's a great question. Ran out of time before work this morning but a lot, enough to fill up several full deep dives. Neighboring grids are going down the same path as California: retiring thermal fleets, moving to lower carbon but more intermittent power mixes. The PNW is also still suffering through a poor water year, and load is growing across the west. All of these things mean fewer imported, dispatchable MW available to California than in the past.
One of the significant changes is both Oregon and Washington state enacted bans against long-term supply contracts for coal-fired imported power. The implication of those bans is less hydroelectricity is available for export to California as this clean power is being utilized to meet growing in-state demand.
The so-called environmental leader, California enacted SB 1368 (Perata) in 2006 which became California PUC § 8340 and § 8341 This legislation barred importing coal-fired power to California via long-term supply contracts. However, the important loophole defining "long - term" as more than five years has been exploited by CAISO and Berkshire Hathaway Energy (BHE) via its PacifiCorp subsidiary. CAISO and PacifiCorp created the "Energy Imbalance Market (EIM)" in late 2014. This is a spot market, not subject to PUC § 8340 and § 8341 bars. The EIM has increased PacifiCorp's sales volumes by millions of dollars annually. The increased air and water pollution associated with greater use of PacifiCorp's approximately 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation is ignored. There are likely BHE "carve outs" in confidential CPUC power procurement plans which are summarized in CGNP's April 5, 2022 OpEd , cited a few paragraphs below.
BHE likely has long-term plans to increase the use of their fossil-fired fleet. Despite opposition from the independent nonprofit Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP dot org) In 2022, BHE was able to get their fossil - fired fleet identified as ....West-wide reliability assets... via FERC Docket ER22-2762. BHE has also supported grid regionalization of the western US (and abolition of CAISO) via their support for California AB 538, currently suspended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Additional information is found in CGNP's April 5, 2022 Capitol Weekly OpEd, "Closing Diablo Canyon spurs fears over replacement power" HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/DCPP-VERSUS-COAL CGNP has gathered information consistent with BHE advocating for the needless retirement of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP) in 2025. Please contact Dr. Nelson at government [at] CGNP dot org for additional details.
'extreme energy price offers when reserves remain abundant rather than reserve price adders when reserves are truly scarce'
No idea, but does this point toward concentrated market power? Cartel like behavior? 'We (and our partners- informally- have a monopoly on the last in pricing - so we're going to set the price wherever we damn well please.'
Not necessarily! This is alluding more to the fact that ERCOT now procures several gigawatts more of what are essentially reserves products that draw capacity out of the energy market. This means that the energy market exhausts lower-cost offers and reaches into the high end of the supply curve much more easily than it otherwise would.
Hmmm .. So the law was written in such a way that the generators who are part of the reserve market get paid, and probably the same generators (same company different facilities) get higher offers on their market bids. They win both ways. If you can't tell, I have little faith in the market to work to lower costs for consumers, or to encourage more renewables and less gas.
Brian Bartholomew, thank you for this informative article. It validates concerns raised by Meredith Angwin in her 2020 book, "Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid." It provides clear evidence that dispatchable power sources, not solar and wind are the beneficiaries of ISO-RTO governance rules. The biggest beneficiary is the politically-powerful natural gas industry. These policies are not "bugs," they are features. Everyone (except the biggest power consumers subject to special rules) ends up paying more for a necessary of modern life, electricity - and we have a less-reliable power grid. Remember when we were told that RTOs and ISOs would result in lower power costs? Studies show the actual result is substantially higher power prices. In December, 2022, Californians paid about $3.5 billion more for their wholesale electric prices for the month than they paid a year earlier, according to an analysis by EPRI's Michael Caravaggio. The cause was natural gas delivery constraints to California, which imports 95% of its natural gas. Please contact me at government [at] cgnp dot org for additional details.
What's the story with the decrease in CAISO imports? Out of state firm generation chased away by low prices when the sun is shining?
It's a great question. Ran out of time before work this morning but a lot, enough to fill up several full deep dives. Neighboring grids are going down the same path as California: retiring thermal fleets, moving to lower carbon but more intermittent power mixes. The PNW is also still suffering through a poor water year, and load is growing across the west. All of these things mean fewer imported, dispatchable MW available to California than in the past.
seconded -- very interesting!
One of the significant changes is both Oregon and Washington state enacted bans against long-term supply contracts for coal-fired imported power. The implication of those bans is less hydroelectricity is available for export to California as this clean power is being utilized to meet growing in-state demand.
The so-called environmental leader, California enacted SB 1368 (Perata) in 2006 which became California PUC § 8340 and § 8341 This legislation barred importing coal-fired power to California via long-term supply contracts. However, the important loophole defining "long - term" as more than five years has been exploited by CAISO and Berkshire Hathaway Energy (BHE) via its PacifiCorp subsidiary. CAISO and PacifiCorp created the "Energy Imbalance Market (EIM)" in late 2014. This is a spot market, not subject to PUC § 8340 and § 8341 bars. The EIM has increased PacifiCorp's sales volumes by millions of dollars annually. The increased air and water pollution associated with greater use of PacifiCorp's approximately 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation is ignored. There are likely BHE "carve outs" in confidential CPUC power procurement plans which are summarized in CGNP's April 5, 2022 OpEd , cited a few paragraphs below.
BHE likely has long-term plans to increase the use of their fossil-fired fleet. Despite opposition from the independent nonprofit Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP dot org) In 2022, BHE was able to get their fossil - fired fleet identified as ....West-wide reliability assets... via FERC Docket ER22-2762. BHE has also supported grid regionalization of the western US (and abolition of CAISO) via their support for California AB 538, currently suspended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Additional information is found in CGNP's April 5, 2022 Capitol Weekly OpEd, "Closing Diablo Canyon spurs fears over replacement power" HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/DCPP-VERSUS-COAL CGNP has gathered information consistent with BHE advocating for the needless retirement of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP) in 2025. Please contact Dr. Nelson at government [at] CGNP dot org for additional details.
'extreme energy price offers when reserves remain abundant rather than reserve price adders when reserves are truly scarce'
No idea, but does this point toward concentrated market power? Cartel like behavior? 'We (and our partners- informally- have a monopoly on the last in pricing - so we're going to set the price wherever we damn well please.'
Not necessarily! This is alluding more to the fact that ERCOT now procures several gigawatts more of what are essentially reserves products that draw capacity out of the energy market. This means that the energy market exhausts lower-cost offers and reaches into the high end of the supply curve much more easily than it otherwise would.
Hmmm .. So the law was written in such a way that the generators who are part of the reserve market get paid, and probably the same generators (same company different facilities) get higher offers on their market bids. They win both ways. If you can't tell, I have little faith in the market to work to lower costs for consumers, or to encourage more renewables and less gas.
Brian Bartholomew, thank you for this informative article. It validates concerns raised by Meredith Angwin in her 2020 book, "Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid." It provides clear evidence that dispatchable power sources, not solar and wind are the beneficiaries of ISO-RTO governance rules. The biggest beneficiary is the politically-powerful natural gas industry. These policies are not "bugs," they are features. Everyone (except the biggest power consumers subject to special rules) ends up paying more for a necessary of modern life, electricity - and we have a less-reliable power grid. Remember when we were told that RTOs and ISOs would result in lower power costs? Studies show the actual result is substantially higher power prices. In December, 2022, Californians paid about $3.5 billion more for their wholesale electric prices for the month than they paid a year earlier, according to an analysis by EPRI's Michael Caravaggio. The cause was natural gas delivery constraints to California, which imports 95% of its natural gas. Please contact me at government [at] cgnp dot org for additional details.