Document jyadRyxmL89BpD6BZGyvwBE1Z

Benjamin Matek is Industry Analyst & Research Projects Manager at the Geothermal Energy Association, where he manages GEA's research efforts and prepares GEA's publications, white papers, and reports on the geothermal industry and renewable energy policy. Additionally, he supports GEA's efforts to tackle policy issues relevant to geothermal energy and the renewable energy sector. He reoeived his B.S. degree in Economics and Physics from American University. Prior to his experience with the Geothermal Energy Association, he worked for the Carbon War Room, a non-profi t organ izat ion started by Si r Richard Branson that is dedicated to finding economical solutions to climate change, and IHS Global Insight, an eoonomicconsulting and advisory firm. Karl Gawell has bean Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association sinoe 1997. He was formerly Director of Government Affairs for the American Wind Energy Association and has held senior positions at the National Wildlife Federation and The Wilderness Society. He worked in several positions in the U.S. Congress, including Associate Staff of the House Appropriations Committee and Legislative Assistant to Senator Paul Wellstone (D.Minn.) CrossMark The Benefits of Baseload Renewables: A Misunderstood Energy Technology Misinformation about baseload renewables has distorted the discussion about the least-cost future renewable energy mix. There are renewable baseload power sou roes with generation profiles that can economically replaoe other retiring electricity sources megawatt for megawatt, thereby avoiding incurring additional costs from purchasing and then balancing renewable intermittent power sou roes with storage or new transmission. Benjamin Matek and Karl Gawell I. Introduction Today's energy literature appears to be proclaiming that "baseload energy is dead," and sometimes argues that variable energy resources are able to meet al I or nearly al I of the power needs of future electricity systems.1,2 On the contrary, it has been a wellestablished energy industry best practice for decades to value a diverse mix of electricity sources in order to ensure grid stability and security, and reduce the overall risks of volatility.3 Energy diversity helps to maintain a sustainable supply of fuels for electricity generation that protects consumers from potential price spikes or shortages. In addition, valuing baseload power is viewed as a key element in meeting demand effectively. Recently, it has been asserted that over procurement of individual technologies is causing rising electricity prices. This assertion is March 2015, Vol. 28, Issue 2 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 101 ND license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.del.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00001 indicative of a need to re-evaluate revaluation of baseload current views on electricity renewables may well provide the supply diversity and the value of best path to address today's baseload renewables.4 Already power chal lenges and be the most we see a price increase starting to effective way to combat the threat take effect. The government's of climate change. However, to Energy Information determine the best path forward, Administration (EIA) speculates a number of system-wide issues that between 2013 and 2014, need to be addressed. They wholesale electricity prices rose include: across the country, "driven ffi What combination of largely by increases in spot technologies has lowest system natural gas prices and high wide costs? energy demand caused by cold weather in the beginning of the year."5 any advocates would have Mthe public believe that baseload power is a rel ic of the To determine the best path forward, a number of past. As a result, there is an abundance of analysis in the renewable space promoting the view that intermittent power system-wide issues need to be addressed. sources can substitute for baseload power using demand-side management, electricity storage, and enhanced coordination or forecasting of power plants. But ffi What mix will have the there is another option often lowest cost considering both overlooked by policy makers when replacement costs and operation choosing resources: to further and maintenance costs over a develop renewable baseload period of several decades? sources like geothermal, biomass, ffi What combination of or hydro power. Instead of trying resources provides the best total to fit the grid to renewables' emissions profile? variability, balancing authorities ffi Which mix of technologies and energy com missions can also provides the best system fit renewablesto the grid. They can reliability? build baseload geothermal, ffi What mix of technologies biomass, or hydro power in provides the most efficient use of conjunction with other power limited capital in achieving long sources to meet their power needs term climate goals? through a more diverse supply. These are just some of the Recognizing that no one-size- questions that need to be asked as fits-all solution is preferable, the power authorities move to generate greater amounts of renewable power. The fact that there are more questions than answers is in part a reflection of the limitations on available literature. However, this article supports the assertion that baseload renewable resources are an important, undervalued means to make grids more resilient to changing climate, keeping electricity prices low, ach i ev i n g cost-effect i ve emissions reductions and using existing infrastructure more efficiently. n the past, baseload power Icame mostly from coal and nuclear faciIities. According to the EIA, coal-fired and nuclear power plants together provided 56 percent of the electricity generated in the United States in 2012. However, EIA estimates nearly one-sixth of U.S. coal capacity is expected to be retired by 2020. Additionally, operators of three nuclear power reactorsSan Onofre (California), Kewaunee (Wisconsin), and Crystal River (Florida) - have retired since 2011, representing 3.7 GW of capacity. The 620 MW Vermont Yankee will retire by 2015 and, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant in New Jersey is expected to reti re i n 20196 Several other nuclear facilities face potential closure in the next decade, including California's only remaining nuclear facility, the 2,240 MW Diablo Canyon plant.7 Generally, while fluctuations do exist in the demand for power 102 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00002 during peak hours and morning ramps, electricity is required 24 hours a day within all balancing authorities.8 The power supply being used to meet demand is increasingly based on intermittent or variable power sources and natural gas. El A found that natural gas-fired power plants accounted for just over half, solar provided nearly one-quarter and wind power onetenth of the new utility-scale generating capacity added in 2013. The natural gas capacity additions came nearly equally from combustion turbine peaker plants and combined-cycle plants which provide intermediate and baseload power. Additionally, almost half of all capacity added in 2013 was located in California.9 s climate goals A increasingly press utilities for emission reduction, the U.S. electrical grid will continue to transition to cleaner fuels. In particular, coal is expected to be phased out and replaced by natural gas and renewable power sources. While this process may be important to meet state and federal climate change goals, it is important to think about the consequences of the current transition process. In some places, intermittent power sources will need to be structured to create a base load resource in order to ensure grid stability. Given the nature of demand, an electricity grid cannot function without substantial baseload power on the system. Most power demand requires baseload power supplies, and a certain minimum energy must be maintained on every electrical grid to ensure against blackouts or system failures. While the amount of baseload required depends on the region, the best future mix of renewables should recognize the value of having some baseload in addition to intermittent and peaking power sources. II. Values of Baseload Power to Electricity Grids Baseload power is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must generate for its customers, or the amount of power required to meet minimum demands based on reasonable expectations of customer requirements. In a hypothetical electricity market's supply curve, baseload generating units, which generally operate24 hours per day yearround, appear on the cheapest part of the supply curve (Figure 1). The opposite or right side of the supply curve represents peaking generators that operate at hours of high demand. Intermediate generating units (also known as cycling units), operate between baseload and peaking generators, and vary their output to adapt to changes in electricity demand.10 Some renewable electricity sources -e.g. bioenergy, hydro, and geothermal power - can easily imitate a traditional coalfired or nuclear station's generation profile to operate as baseload, and may be integrated without any additional backup. Geothermal power, in particular, operates the most efficiently when it runs continuously without interruption; however, some geothermal plants can load follow and depending on the ff A Operating Cost Baseload Resources Intermediate Resources Peaking Resources i System Capacity Available to Meet Electricity Demand Figure 1: Hypothetical Eectricity Market Dispatch Curve March 2015, Vol. 28, Issue 2 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 103 ND license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.del.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00003 engineering of the plant can An important conclusion from provide other flexible system these fi nd i ngs is the val ue of, fi rst, needs.11 a diverse portfolio of resources. n example of a diverse Intermittent sources alone cannot Aportfolio as a renewable cost-effectively generate electricity best practices case electricity for a balanced grid. The study for California is provided study's diverse portfolio scenario by E3. E3, a consulting firm included increased generation specializing in North American from both geothermal and electricity markets, published a biomass power which both of report in January 2014 that which traditionally have baseload modeled different future generation profiles.Second, in the power mixes for California's "less-diverse" generation renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The study12 found a future 50 percent RPS in California is likely to be met by these challenges: Intermittent sou roes alone cannot ffi Renewable integration cost-effectively challenges, particularly overgeneration during daylight hours, are likely to be significant at a 50 percent RPS. generate electricity for a balanced grid. ffi With high penetrations of non-renewable generation, some level of renewable resource curtailment is likely to be necessary to avoid overgeneration and to manage net load ramps. ffi A number of promising integration solutions that could help to mitigate overgeneration, including procurement of a diverse portfolio of renewable resources, increased regional coordination, flexible loads, and energy storage. ffi The lowest-cost 50 percent RPS portfolio modeled here is one with a diversity of renewable resource technologies. The portfolio, higher ratepayer costs will occur because of the need for additional ancillary services to curtail overgeneration. E3's conclusions demonstrate that, in California, resources that are flexible, able to ramp, and reliable are absolutely essential for a minimum cost grid. Today's baseload renewable resources such as geothermal power and biomass are perfect firming resources for a future 50 percent renewable grid. E3 continues: highest-cost portfolio modeled is one that relies extensively on rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. The largest integration challenge that emerges from the [E3's model] is "overgeneration." Overgenera tion occurs when "must-run" generation--non-d ispatchable renewables, combined-heat-andpower (CHP), nuclear generation, run-of-river hydro and thermal generation that is needed for grid stability--is greater than loads plus exports. This study finds that overgeneration is pervasive at RPS levels above 33 percent, particu larly when the renewable portfolio is dominated by solar resources. This occurs even after thermal generation is reduced to the min imum levels necessary to maintain reliable operations.13 verall, E3 mentions that a Ocombination of an oversaturation of baseload resources like nuclear and overgeneration from solar resources will cause problems for California's future electricity grid, which raises costs. Geothermal power and other renewable baseload sources are capable of acting flexibly to adjust to the electrical grid's needsgnd should provide advantages not yet recognized in the regulatory system. For example, some geothermal binary power plants can ramp up and down very quickly. These plants can be ramped up and down multiple times per day from 10 percent to 100 percent of nominal output power. The normal ramp rate for dispatch (by heat source valve) is 15 percent of nominal power per minute. The ramp rate for dispatch in Flexible Operation Mode is 30 percent of nominal power per minute.14 For comparison, gas turbines are usually kept warm and rotating at minimum power for use as available power resources for the 104 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00004 grid. A new type of "flexible" gas turbines, GE LM2500 or GE LMS100, can be ignited and raised to full power within 10 minutes (as claimed in GE Power Aeroderivative Gas Turbines publications).15 n fact overgeneration is Ialready a growing concern in California. From February to April 2014, the California Integrated System Operator (CAISO) had to curtail wind and solar generation four times for a total of six hours to balance supply and demand on the system. Overgeneration and subsequent curtailments reached 485 MW of wind and 657 MW of solar during one of period. To balance supply and demand power systems must curtail renewable power generators or find others to take extra electricity. Either way, California is raising system costs.16 These curtailments can be expected to become a larger issue as intermittent power sources increase in use throughout the United States. Germany another early adopter of renewable technologies faced similar problems. To combat climate change, Germany rapidly built up wind and solar resources but did not adequately plan for the problems posed by their intermittency. As a result, to ensure its grid stability it compensated by building coal plants, especially after their commitment to retire its nuclear faciIities following theFukushima disaster in Japan. Despite notable accomplishments in renewable energy technology, Germany is fighting to keep its electricity grid balanced. As a result, between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal-fired power stations.17 In 2013, just under half of Germany's electricity generation came from coal resources, including lignite and other types of hard coal.18 As Germany has increased its renewable To balance supply and demand power systems must curtail renewable power generators or find others to take extra electricity. generation from 20.2 percent to 24 percent between 2011 and 2013, its generation profile of baseload coal has increased as well. Over the same period coal generation increased from 42.8 percent to 44.8 percent.19 III. The Costs of Fitting Intermittent Power Source to Be Baseload In general renewable energy literature there are three main ways to generate multisource baseload power from intermittent power sources. The first is to coordinate intermittent power sources over vast distances to act a "single unit," such as interconnecting widely separated wind farms with transmission. The second is to couple an intermittent power source with a storage system, such as a PV farm with a compressed air energy storage facility or a pumped hydro facility. The third is to couple variable resources with active demand response strategies that will trigger automatically, as needed, to balance the power system. Each of these approaches has its drawbacks and limitations. The first method involves balancing power over wide areas by means of expanding transmission and coordinating intermittentsources,such as wind. Studies found doing so improves reliability but with cost. For example, one study from Stanford in 200720 showed the more sites that are interconnected; the more the array resembles a single farm with steady winds. However, this model is based on the assumption that a vast transmission network exist to interconnect these wind farms which in reality may not be possible. Of the 50,388 combinations of 19 connected wind farms modeled the authors found "an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power."21 This result March 2015, Vol. 28, Issue 2 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 105 ND license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.del.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00005 indicates that this method would that line. For congested require not only building more transmission lines, the transmission to provide the same integration of intermittent amount of power, but would also resources can raise costs as more require installation of additional transmission infrastructure is generating capacity. built to accommodate the same Coordinating intermittent amount of power. Often, high- resources raises the total cost of quality intermittent resources are meeting a specific power need distant from areas of high electric when factoring in additional power demand. Therefore, they transmission or ancillary costs. require investment in additional While expanding variable resource input to allow averaging of resources improves reliability, it will also increase the minimum capacity of the transmission system needed to meet a specific power need. This expansion could expose the power system to additional bottleneck problems since more transmission capacity will be necessary to produce the same amount of power. For example, instead of building one 50 MW renewable baseload facility transmission infrastructure to that will use a transmission line accommodate new intermittent 60-70 percent of the time, two power sources into the grid, or three interconnected wind raising costs. farms would be required to The models that forecast meet the same load. As a result, interconnected resources are additional transmission based on the assumption of the infrastructure is needed, further development of raising ancillary and transmission transmission infrastructure to costs. accommodate storage or baseload enewable baseload wind. In another model example, Relectricity sources use Mason and Archer 2012 existing transmission capacity considered two situations where efficiently because of their high wind can be used as a baseload capacity factors. A 50 MW resource. They write: intermittent power source needs to consume 50 MW of transmission even though the intermittent source may seldom use the full capacity of In the Wind-NGCC model, only wind electricity is transported long-distance via HVDC since the NGCC plant is located within the terminal local electricity transmission network. This means that the variable supply of wind power results in less than maxi mum capacity utilization of the long-distance HVDC electricity transmission lines. This increases transmission cost. espite the increase in Dtransmission costs, their model did find a few scenarios where operating wind power in a baseload mode would be economical but, in general, it depended heavily on future natural gas prices.22 The second example, which considers intermittent power coupled with energy storage, is technologically feasible in the right circumstances, but generating baseload power from coupled storage and intermittent sources comes with higher costs. These cost increases arise from both upsizing the renewable power needed and adding the costs of storage. Most large-scale energy storage technologies are still untested, with the exception of pumped storage (hydro power), compressed air storage, and a few battery technologies. There is only about 200 MW of compressed air and battery storage technology operating in the U.S23 The remaining 22 GW of storage capacity is hydroelectric pumped storage, which has generated electricity in the U.S. for several decades and is a proven technology. While pumped storage technologies are commercial, they come with disadvantages such as limited 106 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00006 suitable sites, low energy density, and dependency upon water availability.24 Meanwhile, battery technologies made with heavy metals can pose an environmental hazard from their waste. As noted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), batteries contain heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and nickel. These materials can contaminate the environment if not discarded or maintained properly.25 n 2010, California's legislature Ipassed Assembly Bill (AB) 2514 which was designed to encourage California's public utilities to incorporate energy storage into the electricity grid to help reduce dependence on fossil fuel generation to meet peak loads. Regulatory filings from the publ ic uti I ities show only three set specific targets after finding energy storage was cost-effective or appropriate for their balancing authority. In total, most of the 30plus public utilities which commented on the adoption of AB 2514 found setting storage targets as "not appropriate" or "not cost-effective at this time." Only three commissions set targets totaling roughly 30 MW of storage by 2016 and roughly 160 MW by 2021. They are Glendale Water and Power, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Redding Electric Uti^ty26 The only utilities that seem capable of affording the storage technology are investorowned utilities, which have begun the procurement of storage technologies. It is worth noting the appearance that, under the framework established for procurement of storage technology in California, a "costeffect iveness" criterion is used that seems to include a range of val ues - i nstead of the ` ` least costbest fit"standard applied toother technologies (although some argue whether "best-fit" is really included)27,28 Another study from 2008 used a nonlinear mathematical optimization program for investigating the economic and environmental implications of wind penetration. The study found that electrical grids which were more dependent on intermediate hydro power handled the integration of intermittent wind and that the cost effectiveness of intermittent sources is related to the share of hydro power in the grid which acted as to balance out the intermittency of wind power.29 Lastly, an unseen cost is the excess capacity necessary to generate the same amount of load. A study by Budischak et al.30 modeled inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics coupled with electrochemical storage. This study found that to cover 90 percent of load from wind, solar, and battery storage 180 percent of the electrical energy capacity is needed. To cover 99.9 percent of the load requires almost 290 percent of the electrical energy capacity. This result was the most cost-effective scenario for the regional transmission organization PJM. Lost in the baseload discussion is the issue of environmental emissions. As is becoming common practices in places like California, and fueled by low natural gas prices, gas turbines are rapidly being commissioned to balance out intermittent generation. However, building straight baseload renewable plants, such as geothermal, biomass,or hydro power, in many circumstances produces fewer net emissions than coupling intermittent sources with gas turbines or energy storage. The data presented in Fig-1 " / is amalgamated from California Air Resources Board, EIA, EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance, and estimates of carbon emissions from coupling storage and intermittent sources published in academic sources. An example of rising emissions resulting from coupling storage and intermittent sources is provided by Budischaketal.31 For a scenario where solar, wind and March 2015, Vol. 28, Issue 2 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 107 ND license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.del.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00007 250 200 150 100 50 4? s* .<& rv ir Figure 2: Estimated Direct Emission from Renewable Baseload Technologies vs.VMnd/FV Coupled with Storage or Natural Gas. ]fcte: N30C Stands for Natural C&s Combined Cycle and CAES Stands for Compressed Air EnergyStorage.DirectBriissionsfromBiomassConioustion attheRowerHantareRositiveand Significant, But Should be Seen in Connection with the OG^ Absorbed by Growing Hants and ThereforeZero forthePurposesofthisChart(Schldmer, S.,etal., 2014. AinexllhTechnology- specific Cost and Performance Parameters. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPOC), Cambridge/New York. http://wwwjpcc.ch/pdf/as3essment-repQrt/arS/wg3/ ipocj .pdf (accessed 22.01.15)). Binary Geothermal Rants have NoCarbon Emissions Because They are a Qosed Loop System Since no Casses are Released in the AlmosphereDuringRowerGeneration (Matek, B., Schmidt, B., 2013. TheValues ofGeothermal Energy: A Discussion of the Benefits Geothermal Rower Provides to the Future U.S. Power System. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC. http://geo-energy.org/reports/ ValuesVo20ot42CIfetliernBlY2{BBg//o2(I}rafh;-/c2(Fii'ai.|xff (accessed 22.01.15).) Source: Schlcmer, S., et al., 2014. Annex III: Technology-specificCost and Performance Parameters. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IFGC), Cambridge/New York, http: //www, i pcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg3/i pcc_wg3_ar5_annex- iii.pdf (accessed 22.01,15),CalifomiaAirResourcesBoard. "DataReported by Facilities,Suppliers, and ElectricRower Entities." MandatoryG-GReporting-Reported Emissions2012.2012. http://vwwv.arb.c^.gov/(x/reportii'ig/ghg-rep/reported-data/ghg-reports.htm (accessed 14.01.15). Mason, J.E., Archer, C.L., 2012. Baseload electricity from wind via compressed air energy storage (CAES). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 1099-1109. http://www. sciencedirect.com/sciaxe/article/pii/S1364032111005454(accessed 22.01.15). Mason, J., Fthenakis,V., Zweibel, K., Hansen,T., Nikolakakis,T., 2008. CouplingFVand CABpower plants to transform intermittent FV electricity into a dispatchable electricity source. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl., 649-668. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/dd/10.1002/pip.858/ abstract (accessed 22.01.15). Union of Concerned Scientist. "Environmental Impacts of Biomass for Electricity." Union of Concerned Scientist. 2015. htto://www I ICO i^IT^/ : :: v / :: : ; r (accessed 14.01.15). storage cover 30 percent of PJM's load, equal amounts of fossi I fuels are need to compensate for the introductions of these intermittent power sources.32 dditionally, the increased Apresence of distributed generation (DG) technologies on the electricity grid will likely exacerbate the intermittency of electricity grid load. For example, El A expects distributed generation from solar alone to grow to 25GW by 2040.33 While DG is important for combating climate change, future balancing authorities will require new transmission management strategies to manage the increased presence of these intermittent technologies. Increasing penetration of DG systems is likely to increase the operational changes and procurement of greater quantities of demand response services. Without changes in policy, these DG technologies could shift higher costs to non-DG customers who must pay for the ancillary and transmission services of the customers with DG technologies.34 emand response or Dtransmission management strategies may be one of the more cost-effective approaches to tackling intermittency but they have both practical and sociological limitations. In short, demand response services or transmission management consists of a broad range of planning, implementing, and monitoring of activities designed to encourage end users to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption or generation in the case of DG. A key difference between demand response and energy efficiency is that the energy reductions for demand response are time-dependent, whereas reductions for energy efficiency are not. In general there are still some policy barriers that prevent the more practical demand response and transmission 108 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00008 80% 300 such as peak power pricing. Yet these systems do not adjust 250 pricing to compensate for the 200 gaps created by variable resources - and, 150 correspondingly, penalize power 100 suppliers that offer baseload power. Figure 4 is an amalgamation of cost esti mates for the future use of baseload electricity from intermittent technologies compared with weighted average l Average of (January 2008-August 2014} LCOE (2012 $/MWh) time-of-delivery (TOD) adjusted Figure 3: Average Eectric Generator Usage for Select Technologies (January 2008August 2014) versus Average LOSE. JBote: ElADoes Separate Biomass LCCE by Type ofTechnology in their LOCE Publication so Landfill Gas and Biomass is the Same LOSE. Also These Figures are Estimated Levelized Cost of Eectricity (LCCE) for New Generation Resources Commissioning in 2019 Source: Mayes, F., 2014, September 4. Geothermal resources used to produce renewable electricity in western states. Energy Information Administration: Today in Energy, http:// www.eia.gov/taJayinenergy/detail, contract price paid by utilities in California. The estimates were found by an extensive literature review conducted by the authors. It is important to note, that the esti mated prices are from different scenarios as a result of their respected studies and are not management services from being resource. Additionally, meant to prove one technology is adopted.35 In addition to recent according to ElA's data which is more economical or lower cost court decisions that could make national average of level ized cost than another. Ignoring policy certain demand response information, renewable baseload constraints and each power programs legally more difficult to sources are usually cheaper or system's unique energy needs, implement.36 equivalent in price to one technology may be more intermittent power sources. economical in different regions 4. Using Baseload Renewables Compared to Intermittent Technologies urthermore, a power system than another. The geothermal, Fthat prioritizes least cost biomass, biogas, and small hydro per kilowatt-hour without regardpower numbers are the low and to its availability as firm or high prices paid by California's variable resources undercuts public utilities for renewable power supplied by more baseload electricity. Figure 4 Figures lists renewable energy appropriate resources, such as demonstrates the cost advantages technologies by their usage and baseload renewable power of baseload technologies that are cost. As this data from El A sources that could displace al read y com mon I y operated, such shows, geothermal power, fossil fuels without higher as biomass, geothermal, or hydro landfill gas, and other biomass costs. Procurement of these power, and in some cases are are often used as baseload technologies becomes even more extremely economical and power, while conventional hydro complicated when power available with today's technology power can be used as systems retain some of the and resources. intermediate power or baseload features of past traditional Renewable baseload power, depending on the procurement methodologies, technologies come with their own March 2015, Vol. 28, Issue 2 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 109 ND license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.del.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00009 intermittent portfolios at reasonable rates. In doing so, balancing authorities can embrace industry best practice of a diverse m ix of resources as the best option for a renewable generation portfolio. ^W>V + CAES Geothermai 0 Baseioad CSP W^Wind + CAES Biogas Smali Hydo (including UOG) ^^Wind + gas -- Biomass Figure 4: Hypothetical Cost versus Weighted Average TCD Adjusted Contract Price in California of Baseload Renewable Technologies. gbte: TheGeotherrml, Biomass, Biogas, and Small HydroRowerare theV\feighted Average Time-of-Delivery (TCD) Adjusted Contract Price Raid by Utilities Reported by the California PublicUtilities Commission in 2013. The Lowand High Figures Represent the RangeWiich Utilities Reported Prices to the CFLC. The Intermittent Rower Sources are Costs Estimated by their Respected Authors and Adjusted into 2013 U.S. Dollars using Bureau of Labor Statistics' Inflation Calculator (Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Inflation Calculator. 2015. httpi//vww,bls,gov/dafa/inflation_calculator,hln (accessed 15.01.15)) CSP Abbreviates Concentrated Solar Rower, CABSStands for CompressedArStorage, FV is an Aobreviation for Photovoltaic, and UOG stands for "Utility-owned generation." Source: Mason, J., Flhenakis, V., Zweibel, K, Hansen, T., IMkolakakis, T., 2008. Gxpling FV and CAB power plants to transform intermittent FV electricity into a dispatchable electricity source. Prog. Photovolt. Res. 4ppl., 649-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.858/abstract (accessed 22.01.15). Qeenblatt, J.B., Succarb, S., Denkenberger, D.C., Wiliams, R.H., Socolow, R, 2007. Baseload wind eneigy: modeling the ccmpetition between gas turbines and compressed air energy storage for supplemental generation. Eneigy Policy, 1474-1492. http://WAV.sciencBjiii9d.cxm'scierK/aitide/p!i/S0301421506001509 (acceded 22.01.15). Mason, JE, Archer, C.L., 2012. Baseload electricity from wind via compressed air eneigy storage (OB). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 1099-1109. . : . a > ' ; , (accessed 22.01.15). Denholm, P, 2006. Rena/v. Energy. 1355-1370. : . - ; . ^ " >. /. /- (accessed 23.01.15). Wi liams, RH., Succar, S., 2008. Ccmpressed Ar Energy Storage: Theory, Resources, and /Applications forWnd Ftwer. Prinoeton Environmental Institute. , > ' :: : lx-'. '< /' /'/. ` (accessed 23.01.15). Fthenakis, V., Mason, JE, Zweibe, K, 2008. The technical, geographical, and econcmic feasibility forsolareneigytosipply theenergy needsoftheUS. EnergyFblicy, 387-4399. http:// www.scienoeditecf.cotVsctenca/artide/pii/^5301421508004072 (accessed 22.01.15). Cali fornia FAjblic Utilities Commission. The Padilla Report to the Legislature: Reporting 2013 Renewable Procurement Costs in Compliance with Senate Bill 836 (Padilla, 2011). Sacramento: California Public Utilities Commission, 2014. ; ; .? v; rdonlyres/775640F8-38D7-4895-9252-7E17261776FE/0/PadillaFfeport2014RNA_.[:xjf (accused 22.01.15). drawbacks, like high upfront costs, a need to secure biomass fuel sources, or limited locations available for geothermal or hydro power. But when they are available, these sources of electricity can be economical options to balance out V. Conclusion: A New Examination of Baseload Renewables Is in Order Before policymakers decide the nature of future electricity grids, some basic questions about the diversity of an electricity grid should be addressed and a re examination of the role of baseload technologies appears in order. Instead of assuming one technology is preferred, a range of renewable supply options should be considered. One approach might promote intermittent or variable power sources as a substitute for baseload power using demandside management, electricity storage, and enhanced coordination or forecasting of power plants. However, there is another option to further develop renewable baseload sources like geothermal, biomass, or hydro power and seek a more diverse supply. There are, of course, points in between as well. n choosing a path to a new Igeneration mix, the values, performance characteristics and availability of baseload renewable resources should be examined. The value of diversity 110 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http; / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http; / /dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.tej.2015,02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00010 should be recognized and integrated into future planning, Reduced in Coming Decades. IHS Press Room, http: / / press.!hs.com/ press-release/energy-power/i hs- and the total cost and study-diversity-united-states- performance of different mixes of technologies should be power-supply-could-besignificantly-red (accessed 22.01.15). examined for each power system or balancing authority, 4. Vartabedian, R., 2014, April 25. U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good. L.A. Times, http: / / www. particularly as these systems call lati mes.com / nation /la-na- upon larger amounts of renewable generation to meet power-prices-20140426-story. html#page=2 (accessed 22.01.15). system power needs. his article seeks to raise a Tbasic questions directed toward the value of a diverse 5. Shear, T., 2015, January. Today in Energy: Wholesale Power Prices Increase Across the Country in 2014. Energy Information Administration. electricity grid while not pointing to a specificsolution, in part due to the limitations on available literature and inherent differences in regional power systemsand resourceavailability. Instead, this article raises basic questions about the intermittency-versus-baseload discussion, and points to the values of renewable baseload power, assuming that in the end there will not bea single solution that best fits all of the nation's power needs. & http: / / www.eia.gov / today inenergy / detail.cfm?id=19531 (accessed 18.01.15). Endnotes: 1. Exas Consulting. "The economics have changed, new baseload power is likely dead." Feb. 5, 2013. http:/ / exasconsulti ng.com / blog / theeconomics-have-changed-newbaseload-power-is-likely-dead / (accessed 13.01.15). 2. American Wind Energy Association, 2013. Wind and reliability: baseload power, http:/ / www.awea.org/lssues/Content. aspx?ltemN umber=5453 (accessed 13.01.15). 3. IHS, 2014, July 24. HS Study: Diversity of United States Power Supply Could be Significantly 6. Jones, J., Leff M., 2014. Implications of Accelerated Power Plant Retirements. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. http: / / www.eia.gov /forecasts/aeo/ power_plant.cfm (accessed 22.01.15). 7. Baker, D.R., 2014, August 27. Petition Seeks Closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant. SFGate. http: / / www.sfgate.com/business/ article/Petition-seeks-closure-ofDiablo-Canyon-nuclear-5714455.php (accessed 22.01.15). 8. Energy Information Administration, 2011, April 6. Today in Energy: Demand for Electricity Changes Through the Day. Energy Information Administration. http: / / www.eia.gov / today inenergy / detail.cfm?id=830 (accessed 13.01.15). 9. Lee, April. "Half of power plant capacity additions in 2013 came from natural gas." Today In Energy. Energy Information Administration . April 2014. http: / / www.eia.gov/ todayi nenergy / detai I .cfm?i d=15751 (accessed Jan. 15, 2015). 10. Energy Information Administration, 2012, August. Today in Energy: Electric Generator Dispatch Depends on System Demand and the Relative Cost of Operation. Energy Information Administration. http: / / www.eia.gov / todayi nenergy / detail.cfm?id=7590 (accessed 15.01.15) . 11. Matek, B., Schmidt, B., 2013. The Values of Geothermal Energy: A Discussion of the Benefits Geothermal Power Provides to the Future U.S. Power System. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC. http: / / geo-energy.org/reports/Values% 20of%20Geothermal%20Energy%20 Draft%20Final.pdf (accessed 22.01.15). 12. Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., 2014. Investigating a Higher Renewables Portfolio Standard in California: Executive Summary. San Francisco, https: / / www.ethree.com/ documents/ E3_Fi nal_RPS_Report_ 2014_01_06_ExecutiveSummary.pdf (accessed 22.01.15). 13. Ibid. 14. Linvill, Carl, John Candelaria, and Catherine Elder. The Value of Geothermal Energy Generation Attributes: Aspen Report to Ormat Technologies. San Francisco: Aspen Environmental Group, 2013. http:/ / geo-energy.org / reports / Val ues% 20of%20Geothermal%200ct% 202013%20appendix.pdf (accessed 22.01.15) . 15. Ibid. 16. Howarth, David, and Bill Monsen. "Renewables Face: Daytime Curtailments in California." Project Finance Newswire, November 2014: 12-18. http: / / www.chadbourne.com / files/Publication/a92d70d-4d714984-aed 2-0d 8f3925e51 a / March 2015, Vol.28, Issue 2 1040-6190/# 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- 111 ND license (http: / /creativecomrnons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/40/)., http: / /dx.doi.erg/10.1016/j.tej.2015.02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00011 Presentation / Publication Attach men!./ d 77e88ie~ d47a-4a7d -al 490dbf574776fd / pfn_1114.pdf#page=12 (accessed Jan. 22, 2015). 17. Wilson, R., 2014, January 20. Why Germany's Nuclear Phase Out is Leading to More Coal Burning. http: / / theenergycollective.com/ robertwilson190/328841 / whygermanys-nuclear-phase-outlead i nq-more-coal-bu rni nq (accessed 15.01.15). 18. Statistisches Bundesamt. Production: Gross electricity production in Germany from 2011 to 2013. 2015. https: / / www.destat.is.de/ EN /FactsFigures/ EconomicSectors/ Energy /Production /'Tables/ GrossElectricityProduction.html: jsessionid=2A22AB86FCB17D45E3B 739AEC252E5F9.cae4 (accessed 15.01.15) . 19. Ibidjp 20. Archer, C.L., Jacobson, M.Z., 2007. Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 46. http: / / journals.ametsoc.org/doi /abs/10. 1175/2007JA MCI 538.1 (accessed 22.01.15) . 21. Ibid. 22. Mason, J.E., Archer, C.L., 2012. Baseload electricity from wind via compressed air energy storage (CAES). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 1099-1109. http:/ /www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/ SI 364032111005454 (accessed 22.01.15). 23. Energy Information Administration, 2014, April 17. Level ized Cost and Level ized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Energy Information Administration, http: / / www.eia.gov/forecasts/ aeo/electricityjgeneration.cfm (accessed 15.01.15). 24. SBC Energy Institute, 2013, September. Leading the Energy Transition: Electricity Storage. California Public Utilities Commission, http: / / www.cpuc.ca, gov / NR / rdonl y res / D DB399C29E1A-41E0-AI ooo E7FE57F5F/0/ Elect ricityStorageFactbook_ SBCEnergyinstitui:e,pdf (accessed January 2015). 25. Environmental Protection Agency. Batteries. Nov. 19, 2012. http: / / www.epa.gov /osw / conserve/materials/ battery.htm (accessed 15.01.15). 26. California Public Utilities Commission. AB 2514 - Energy Storage System Procurement Targets from Publicly Owned Utilities. 2014. http:/ /www.energy.ca.gov/ assessments / ab2514_energy_storage. html (accessed 15.01.15). 27. Hunt, T., 2014, November 3. Will California's Energy Storage Procurement Process Unleash the Battery Market? Greentech Media, http: / / www.greentechmedia.com / articles/ read / Will-CaliforniasEnergy-Storage-ProcurementProcess-Unleash-the-Battery-Ma (accessed 15.01.15). 28. Kaun, B., 2013, June. Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Storage in California. California Public Utilities Commission, http: / / www. cpuc.ca.gov / NR/ rcionlyres/ 1110403D-85B2-4FDB-B9275F2EE9507FC/ "> orage,, CostEffectivenessRepo 'r .pdf (accessed 15.01.15). 29. Benitez, L.E., Benitez, P.C., Cornel is van Kooten, G., 2008. The economics of wind power with energy storage. Energy Econ., 1973-1989. http: / / www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/ SOI 40988307000205 (accessed 22.01.15). 30. Budischak, C., Sewell, D., Thomson, H., Mach, L., Veron, D.E., Kempton, W., 2013. Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9 percent of the time. J. Power Sources, 60-74. http: / / www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii /S0378775312014759(accessed 22.01.15) . 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Energy Information Administration. "Analysis and Projects: Supplement to the Annual Energy Outlook 2013." Modeling Distributed Generation in the Buildings Sectors. Aug. 29, 2013. http:/ / www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ nems/2013/buildings/ (accessed 15.01.15) . 34. Wood, L., 2013, October. Value of the Grid to DG Customers. The Edison Foundation. http:/ /www.edisonfoundation.net/ iee/Documents / IEE_ValueofGrid toDGCustomers_Sept2013.pdf (accessed 15.01.15). 35. Cappers, P., MacDonald, J., Goldman, C.,2013, March. Market and Policy Barriers for Demand Response Providing Ancillary Services in U.S. Markets. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, http: / / drrc.lbl.gov/sites/ all / files/lbnl-6155e.pdf (accessed 15.01.15) . 36. Cardwell, D., Wald, M.L., 2014, November 26. Legal fight pits sellers of energy against buyers. New York Times. http:/ / www.nytimes.com/2014/11 / 27/business/energy-environment/ legal-fight-pits-sellers-of-energyagainst-buyers.html (accessed 22.01.15) . 112 1040-6190/ # 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND The Electricity Journal license (http: / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /4.0/)., http: / /dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2015.02.001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007912-00012