Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Smart Retro Workshop – Kvadraturen Oslo
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

1

Share

Download to read offline

A City-Utility Energy Partnership for Tucson?

Download to read offline

A city in the sunny southwest, Tucson is wondering how it can maximize its use of cost-effective, economy-boosting solar power. Is a partnership with the electric utility, as seen in Minneapolis, the answer?

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

A City-Utility Energy Partnership for Tucson?

  1. 1. A C T I VAT I N G A N E N E R G Y PA R T N E R S H I P F O R T U C S O N ? John Farrell February 18, 2015
  2. 2. H U G E P O T E N T I A L
  3. 3. POTENTIAL PERCENT OF POWER FROM LOCAL RENEWABLES 100% or more 50 to 100% 25 to 50% 10 to 25% 10% or less L O C A L R E N E WA B L E P O T E N T I A L 32 states - 100%+
  4. 4. What percent of Arizona electricity could come from rooftop solar alone? I N T E R A C T I V E
  5. 5. 20% 23% 49% 42% 31% 18% 23% 24% 19% 19% 28% 23% 24% 24% 26% 21% 12% 11% 52% 51% 22% 23% 21% 23% 19% 14% 38% 41% 26% 35% 28% 19% 25% 21% 25% 24% 20% 22% 19% 23% 17% 23% 18% 20% 15% 24% 21% 18% Residential and Commercial roofs L O C A L S O L A R P O T E N T I A L POTENTIAL PERCENT OF POWER FROM LOCAL ROOFTOP SOLAR 50% or more 25 to 50% 10 to 25% 0 to 10% 21% 49%
  6. 6. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ Residential Commercial Residential with ITC Commercial with ITC Prairie Fire Solar Green Valley 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ T U C S O N S O L A R AT PA R I T Y ? cents per kilowatt-hour U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) R AT E S M O D E L E D A C T U A L ( P I M A C O U N T Y ) 30% tax credit 30% tax credit NREL System Adivsor Model
  7. 7. $0 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 Wind Solar Source: Lawrence Berkeley Labs A N D O N LY G E T T I N G B E T T E R U.S. Installed Cost of Wind and Solar Power ($/kilowatt)
  8. 8. 0¢ 3¢ 6¢ 9¢ 12¢ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 R I S I N G AV E R A G E R E TA I L E L E C T R I C I T Y P R I C E S I N T U C S O N ¢ per kilowatt-hour Source: EIA +2.8% per year since 2008
  9. 9. But rates = bills
  10. 10. W H AT W I L L B E A D D E D ? C U M U L AT I V E C A PA C I T Y A D D I T I O N S T U C S O N E L E C T R I C P O W E R ( T E P ) 2 0 1 4 R E F E R E N C E P L A N 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 TEP 2014 IRP, p26
  11. 11. C I T Y- U T I L I T Y D I S S O N A N C E
  12. 12. Are you Canadian? I N T E R A C T I V E
  13. 13. Owned by Canadian company, Fortis Governed by AZ Corporation Commission
  14. 14. M I L L I O N T O N S O F G H G E M I S S I O N S 4 5 6 7 8 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 T U C S O N C L I M AT E P R O B L E M Other 40% Tucson Electric Power 60% Sources: Pima County GHG Inventory, TEP 2014 IRP
  15. 15. U T I L I T Y R E S O U R C E M I X 2 0 1 3 Efficiency/Other 4% Renewable 4.0% Coal 80% Gas 12% Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  16. 16. U T I L I T Y R E S O U R C E M I X 2 0 2 8 Efficiency/Other 11% Renewable 9.6% Coal 43% Gas 36% G H G - 2 7 % E L E C . - 1 6 % T O TA L Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  17. 17. M I L L I O N T O N S O F G H G E M I S S I O N S 4 5 6 7 8 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Actual emissions Projected based on TEP IRP Kyoto reduction goal R E S U LT S O F U T I L I T Y R E S O U R C E P L A N … Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  18. 18. M I L L I O N T O N S O F G H G E M I S S I O N S 0 2 4 6 8 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 … N O T N E T Z E R O N E T Z E R O 2 0 4 0 – – C I T Y ’ S L I K E LY G O A L
  19. 19. F O R E C A S T A G A I N S T T H E G R A I N 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: World Bank, 2014 TEP IRP Per capita electricity use, United States T E P F O R E C A S T
  20. 20. A R I Z O N A C O S T O F C O A L D E L I V E RY 0 10 20 30 40 2010 2011 2012 2013 C O S T LY C O A L R E L I A N C E $ per short ton Source: EIA
  21. 21. C O S T LY C O A L R E L I A N C E Coal 43% $161 million in compliance with pollution law by 2018 Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  22. 22. • 1200 MW of new capacity planned • 50+ year commitment • 350 gallons of water per MWh • Cost of $88-119 per MWh T H I S I S A G A S Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  23. 23. T H I S I S A G A S Twice as much natural gas capacity planned as solar power
  24. 24. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 16.6¢ U T I L I T Y ’ S C O S T F O R E C A S T cents per kilowatt-hour U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M 11.9¢ Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  25. 25. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 11.1¢ T U C S O N ’ S A C T U A L C O S T O F S O L A R cents per kilowatt-hour U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M 11.9¢ 16.6¢ “integration” Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  26. 26. “integration” “We have to back up every kilowatt of solar every minute of every day”
  27. 27. D I S - I N T E G R AT I O N Utility and neighbors have a 33% reserve margin (WECC) Source: TEP 2014 IRP
  28. 28. D I S - I N T E G R AT I O N solar resource is predictable
  29. 29. D I S - I N T E G R AT I O N Source: http://ilsr.org/solving-solars-variability-more-s I N T E G R AT I O N C O S T S FA L L W I T H D I S P E R S I O N 
 ( $ P E R M W H ) 0 10 20 30 40 1 solar plant 5 solar plants 25 solar plants $2.70 $10.80 $39.00
  30. 30. D I S - I N T E G R AT I O N Efficiency/Other 4% Renewable 4.0% Coal 80% Gas 12% Integration costs are minimal when solar is a tiny fraction of grid resources
  31. 31. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 11.1¢ T U C S O N ’ S A C T U A L C O S T O F S O L A R cents per kilowatt-hour U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M 11.9¢ adjusted
  32. 32. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 11.1¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 4.37¢ 11.1¢ T U C S O N ’ S A C T U A L C O S T O F S O L A R U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M M O D E L E D adjusted 30% tax credit 30% tax credit 11.9¢ Source: System Advisor Model
  33. 33. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 11.1¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 4.37¢ 11.1¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ Utility scale solar Residential Commercial Prairie Fire Solar Green Valley 5.7¢ 9.6¢ T U C S O N ’ S A C T U A L C O S T O F S O L A R U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M M O D E L E D A C T U A L ( P I M A C O U N T Y ) adjusted C R E D I B I L I T Y G A P 30% tax credit 30% tax credit 11.9¢
  34. 34. 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 8.8¢ 11.1¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ 4.37¢ 11.1¢ 0¢ 5¢ 10¢ 15¢ 20¢ Utility scale solar Residential Commercial Prairie Fire Solar Green Valley 5.7¢ 9.6¢ T U C S O N ’ S A C T U A L C O S T O F S O L A R U T I L I T Y ( T E P ) C L A I M M O D E L E D A C T U A L ( P I M A C O U N T Y ) adjusted 30% tax credit 30% tax credit 11.9¢ SOLAR SAVINGS OVER GAS
  35. 35. WAT E R
  36. 36. WAT E R I S L I M I T E D • Central Arizona Project has lowest water rights from Colorado river • Water storage will cover shortage but less water sales mean higher rates
  37. 37. L O T S O F WAT E R F O R P O W E R T U C S O N WAT E R U S E TEP 15% 85%
  38. 38. M I N N E A P O L I S : A M O D E L C I T Y- U T I L I T Y PA R T N E R S H I P ?
  39. 39. A S I M I L A R C H A L L E N G E
  40. 40. Minneapolis Energy Options Taking charge of our energy future G R A S S R O O T S A C T I O N
  41. 41. Clean Local Equitable Affordable Reliable Minneapolis Energy Options Taking charge of our energy future
  42. 42. E N E R G Y O P T I O N S 2 0 1 2 Franchise • 20 years • $23 million for city general fund • expiring 2014 Municipal utility
  43. 43. O R G A N I Z I N G L E D T O O P T I O N S
  44. 44. Franchise reform Community Choice Aggregation Partnership E N E R G Y O P T I O N S 2 0 1 4 Franchise • 20 years • $23 million for city general fund • expiring 2014 Municipal utility
  45. 45. C I T Y- U T I L I T Y PA R T N E R S H I P
  46. 46. 2 - Y E A R W O R K P L A N Minneapolis Energy Options Taking charge of our energy future B + Building benchmarking Community-driven energy efficiency Community solar LED streetlights Pay back on the bill
  47. 47. C O N S TA N T V I G I L A N C E
  48. 48. W H Y F O C U S O N L O C A L P O W E R ?
  49. 49. $48 billion at stake
  50. 50. S O L A R I S VA L U A B L E
  51. 51. 0¢ 2¢ 4¢ 6¢ 8¢ 10¢ 12¢ 14¢ Energy Gen. capacity Environment T&D Deferral Loss Savings 12.8¢ (per kWh) Source: The Value of Distributed Photovoltaics to Austin Energy and the City of Austin Austin Energy Value of Solar Tariff
  52. 52. $0.00 $0.03 $0.06 $0.08 $0.11 $0.14 Brown energy replacement Avoided transmission losses Environmental (RPS compliance) Avoided transmission access Local capacity value (per kWh) Palo Alto CLEAN Program 13.5¢
  53. 53. $0.00 $0.03 $0.06 $0.08 $0.11 $0.14 Brown energy replacement Avoided transmission losses Environmental (RPS compliance) Avoided transmission access Local capacity value (per kWh) Minnesota Value of Solar 12¢
  54. 54. C O S T S H I F T ? 0 3 6 9 12 Value of solar (MN) Net metering payment (MN) Solar producers provide subsidy for non-solar ratepayers
  55. 55. L O C A L P O W E R VA L U E Over 25 years, locally owned = $5 million of electricity spending in local pockets. Source: NREL JEDI economic model 1 Megawatt $2.5 million dollars and 20 construction jobs
  56. 56. L O C A L P O W E R VA L U E Not local 0 25 50 75 100 very negative negative neutral positive very positive Comparing two towns with nearby wind projects. When one is locally owned, it means…
  57. 57. L O C A L P O W E R VA L U E Supporting increased use of local wind energy Not local 0 25 50 75 100 very negative negative neutral positive very positive -44% +33% +77% net approval Local Ownership
  58. 58. Other 54% Individuals & Farmers 46% Germany’s Energy Revolution Still People Powered 29,000 MW 20% renewable
  59. 59. T H E F U T U R E F O R L O C A L E N E R G Y
  60. 60. EQUITABLELOCAL LOW- CARBONEFFICIENTFLEXIBLE LOW-CARBONEFFICIENTFLEXIBLE LOCAL EQUITABLE FIVE PILLARS OF ENERGY DEMOCRACY “Utility 2.0” pillars $48 billion opportunity “Utility 3.0”
  61. 61. E N E R G Y D E M O C R A C Y I N A C T I O N INDEPENDENT LOCAL GRID MANAGER = super efficient buildings
  62. 62. L O C A L P O W E R O P P O R T U N I T Y S A N TA F EB O U L D E R 2x Coal same
  63. 63. LEVERAGE UtilitiesCities need
  64. 64. www.ilsr.org R E A D M O R E @johnffarrell F O L L O W A L O N G
  • rojinderakhshan1

    Mar. 17, 2016

A city in the sunny southwest, Tucson is wondering how it can maximize its use of cost-effective, economy-boosting solar power. Is a partnership with the electric utility, as seen in Minneapolis, the answer?

Views

Total views

1,335

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

320

Actions

Downloads

13

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

1

×