Electric Sector Restructuring and Utility GHG Emissions: Trends and Opportunities in the US 50 State Street, Suite 3 Montpelier, Vermont USA 05602 Tel: 802.223.8199 Fax: 802.223.8172 7 th Chatham House Conference London -- November 4, 2003 Richard Cowart The Regulatory Assistance Project Website: http://www.raponline.org 177 Water St. Gardiner, Maine USA 04345 Tel: 207.582.1135 Fax: 207.582.1176
Overview: 3 topics Does electric restructuring/liberalization improve or worsen the GHG profile of the electric industry? Actions by US states: (1): Initiatives in the US electric sector during the restructuring decade to promote efficiency and renewables Actions by US states (2): Explicit GHG initiatives now underway in the US, at the state and local levels
US CO2 Emissions
Why electricity matters
US electricity growth trends Sales up 31% in the past decade Summer peak up 56,000 MW in 4 years NERC predicts: +160,000 MW of demand growth, 1999-2010 DOE forecast: we will need to add the equivalent of the current capacity of Japan AND Germany to the US electric grid by 2020.
Why US states matter Even individually, they are significant GHG producers. Texas (population 21million) exceeds the combined CO2 emissions of 119 developing countries (over 1 Billion people), and its emissions exceed those of Canada. California s emissions about the same as Australia, exceed those of Brazil 42 US states, individually, exceed combined emissions of 50 or more developing nations. In the US federal system, states have significant authority to legislate and regulate. Most regulation of the electric sector in the US is at the state level. States really are the laboratories of democracy. State initiatives for carbon management contrast with US federal inaction.
Does Restructuring Help? Restructuring Activity in the United States Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_str/regmap.html
Does restructuring help? Trends so far Positive GHG trends : New generation (mostly gas) is cleaner than US mix; Competition pushes up output from nuclear units; BUT: Competitive advantage to most older coal plants. Coal plant capacity factors rising. Utility efficiency programs cut in half post- 1994, reversing earlier growth trend; Persistent load growth pushes the system; Competitive pressure halts new PURPA renewables; Retail markets and green markets developing slowly.
CO2 emissions in franchise states: steadily rising 30 25 20 15 10 5 AL FL GA IN KY MO WV 0 Change from 1990 to 1999-2001 (M metric tons/year) Electric sector only -- Sample of non-restructured states
CO2 emissions in restructured states: mostly rising 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 -10 CA IL MI NY OH PA TX Change from 1990 to 1999-2001, Electric sector emissions (M metric tons Co2 eq./year) Sample of Restructured US States Data source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/emission_state.xls
New gas does not displace old coal: Both are rising
Generation growth to 2020 renewables still small
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Increased Gas prices-- will drive more Coal generation Apr-90 Natural Gas Futures Price ($/MMBtu) Apr-91 Apr-92 Apr-93 Apr-94 Apr-95 Apr-96 Apr-97 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Feb-09 Source: NYMEX
Topic 2: Efficiency and renewables initiatives in state utility regulations Many public purposes -- not focused on GHG reductions Some as part of restructuring plans, some independently Leading initiatives: Renewable portfolio standards System benefit charges Net metering for small renewables Emissions disclosure and green marketing options
Renewable energy standards MN: 3.6% by 2002 and 4.8% by 2012 WI: 2.2% by 2011 ME: 30% by 2000 NV: 1% by 2009, half solar IA: 2% by 1999 MA: 11% by 2009 CT: 13% by 2009 NJ: 6.5% by 2012 PA: varies by utility AZ: 1.1% by 2007, 60% solar NM: 5% of standard offer TX: 2.2% by 2009 12 states
Renewable energy funds Cumulative 1998-2012 $95 mil. $10 mil $94 mil $32 mil $127 mil $15 mil $31 mil. MA: $332 mil RI: $10 mil CT: $275 mil NJ: $271 mil. $2,005 mil $234 mil. $40 mil. 14 renewables funds = $3.7 billion thru 2012
*Includes Illinois, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Renewables expected from state standards and funds Megawatts 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 8,550 MW new renewables 7,800 MW existing renewables CO2 reduction equivalent to * 1.2 billion more trees * 3.9 million less cars 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Other* California Nevada Arizona New Mexico Texas Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin New Jersey Connecticut Massachusetts Maine
Energy efficiency funds $315 mil $3,152 mil $44 mil Cumulative 1998-2012 $525 mil $225 mil $156 mil $110 mil. $150 mil ME: $254 mil VT: $64 mil NH: TBD MA: $624 mil RI: $56 mil CT: $1,216 mil NJ: $836 mil DE: $21 mil MD: $65 mil $126 mil. TBD--10% of load growth by 2004 19 funds = $7.9 billion thru 2012
The Vermont Energy Efficiency Utility Model Power Costs vs. Efficiency Vermont Costs for 2002 & 2003 NE-ISO Average Monthly Price 12.0 10.0 Delivered Cost of Wholesale Pow er * Wholesale Spot Market Price Efficiency Vermont, Contract Commitment Cents per Killowatthour 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 Efficiency Savings: 1 cent/kwh (Jan 2002), more than 6 cents/kwh (Mar 2003). Currently 3.6 cents/kwh 0.0 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03
Impact of California DSM Programs and Standards 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 Public Agency Managed Load Mgmt Non Dispatchable Fuel Substitution Energy Efficiency Building Stds. Appliance Stds. 6,000 MW 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000-1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Net metering 25 kw NH: 25 kw ME: 100 kw 25 kw 100 kw 50 kw 100 kw 40 kw 20 kw 10 kw * MA: 60 kw RI: 25 kw 10 kw 10 kw 10 kw No limit 40kW * No limit 10 kw * * CT: No limit MD: 80 kw 100 kw 10 kw * 50 kw * 30 states * IN: 1,000 kwh/month VT: 15 kw, 100 kw for anaerobic digesters VA: 10 kw (residential);25 kw (commercial) OK: 100 kw and 25,000 kwh NJ: No limit (100kW limit proposed)
Green Pricing: widespread activity, but penetration is thin
Topic(3): New State Initiatives Focused on GHG Renewables and Efficiency policies noted so far not focused explicitly on GHG US federal inaction creating a policy vacuum on GHG States, local governments, corporations are starting to act Examples of promising initiatives for the utility sector are:
Recent Electric Power Sector GHG Reduction Initiatives New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan US Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Oregon Power Plant CO2 Offset Program New Jersey GHG Reduction Target California Climate Action Registry Massachusetts Power Plant Emission Standards
Recent state initiatives to limit electric-sector GHGs Explicit GHG initiatives, in addition to historic efficiency and renewables programs 10 RGGI states equivalent to the 4 th largest world economy
New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan (NEG/ECP) Goal: Reduce regional GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 to 10% below 1990 by 2020 ultimately eliminate threat to climate Reduce electric sector emissions Minus 20% per MWH from current levels by 2025 through more efficient or lower- carbon generation. Increase end-use efficiency by 20% Establish a regional standardized GHG Emissions Inventory. Maine has adopted the goals into law, launching a process to identify needed action steps.
Oregon:Power Plant CO2 Offset Program Statute requires new plants, including emergency plants, to meet stringent levels of CO2 output per kwh Standard essentially requires offsets Many choose to pay the Climate Trust, which uses funds to reduce or sequester equivalent emissions. Five initial projects reduced CO2 at about US$1.50 per ton.
Massachusetts: Power Plant Emission Standards Problem: Older plants not subject to Clean Air Act became more viable after restructuring. State DEP issued new multiple pollutant rule, specific to these facilities, with support of governor and other agencies, including: cap on CO2 emissions reduction to combined average of 1800 lbs of CO2/MWh Mandatory CO2 reductions for the 6 largest, most polluting plants in the state.
2003 Regional Initiative in Northeast US (RGGI) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) 10 Northeastern US States, led by NY, have agreed to develop a cap and trade program focusing on power plant CO2 emissions. RGGI States = world s 4th largest economy Program design agreement by April 2005 Would work with, and supplement the NEG/ECP process noted above.
Other GHG Reduction Initiatives Impacting Electric Power Sector New Jersey : Covenant with state s largest utility to reduce emissions 15% below 1990 by 2005, with monetary penalties for nonattainment. Wisconsin: large emitters required to report CO2 emissions since 1993. Has created Emissions Reduction Registry. Portland, Oregon: goal to reduce GHG emissions 10% from 1990 levels by 2010.
Lessons Being Learned US national government is unable to resolve GW debate state action is emerging Restructuring is stalled the electricity context is going to be a hybrid system Default service is the new franchise GHG policies must be built into it States can be creative and flexible in designing GHG mitigation programs Both no regrets and explicit GHG programs and goals can be pursued effectively by states Groups of states will be even more effective in developing broad programs and GHG trading systems International groups can help US states do a better job.