The Dirty Secrecy of Clean Energy Costs

MARCH 19, 2012


“Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” said Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis regarding the need for governmental transparency – but apparently not when it comes to solar power and other renewable energy sources. California has embarked on an ambitious, unprecedented program to provide one-third of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020. It’s likely to be expensive replacing oil and cheap natural gas with costly, inefficient solar and wind power. But Californians aren’t being told how much extra they’ll have to pay.

“I don’t understand what the size of the bill will be for it all,” said Robert Michaels, a Cal State Fullerton professor of economics and an energy expert. “Basically, what’s happening is everybody is being kept in the dark about this. Allegedly because it’s necessary to maintain competition among projects. It’s a drama that none of us is allowed to see, and none of us is allowed to get the figures on.”

Many of the purchase power agreements for renewable energy projects are coming in at above the market rate for energy — a cost that will be passed on to ratepayers. But the amount is known only to the California Public Utilities Commission, which keeps the figures under wraps for years.

The CPUC approves nearly every renewable project that comes before it, regardless of cost. But that’s not how it was supposed to be. The enabling legislation in 2002 for what is known as the Renewables Portfolio Standard, SB 1078, required that the cost of proposed renewable projects be compared to the market price of energy, and that procurement be restricted if the project’s price is too high. It also provided for above-market costs to be paid from a state-controlled above-market fund, rather than passing the extra cost on to the consumer.

This was reaffirmed in follow-up legislation. In 2006, SB 107, by State Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, increased and accelerated the renewable target goals while continuing to limit procurement if prices were too high. Likewise in 2007 with SB 1036 by then-Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland. And similarly in last year’s SBx1 2 by Simitian.

But as the pressure has increased to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, the prices have also increased — and cost-containment has gone by the wayside like a golden eagle after flying into a windmill blade.

The average bids for solar projects doubled while wind projects increased about 50 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to the CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates in a report last August titled “The Green Rush.” Fifty-nine percent of renewable contracts have been awarded at above-the-market rates in recent years, with PG&E leading the way with 77 percent of its contracts.

But what about that above-market fund that was supposed to pick up the tab for the high-cost contracts? As of last August, $773 million had been allocated — but a whopping $6 billion is needed to pay for all of the above-market contracts that have been approved. Michaels said that fund has since run out of money.

Pay for It

“Essentially you now have no choice but to pay whatever the contract price is for the renewable,” he said. “Renewable energy in California means wind and solar. Wind is expensive and solar is astronomical, particularly for the power you get. So what you have got now is a more interesting problem: People are not allowed to find out what the actual bills for these projects will be. The reason is because the PUC has agreed with utilities complaining, ‘We can’t let ordinary people know what the price of these things are, because you can cause competitive problems and it can result in price fixing’ — or something like that.”

Michaels cited what he called an “outrageous project” — PG&E’s solar project in the Mojave Desert. The plant could cost an estimated $1.6 billion while generating only 250 megawatts. Although scheduled to be completed it 2014, it may not be hooked up to the electrical grid until 2018 after needed upgrades are made.

Likely emboldening PG&E to lay out that kind of money for a questionable project is that it comes with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. That’s the same DOE that provided a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra.

“That’s a staggering amount to pay for the kind of power you are getting — it only works when the sun is shining,” said Michaels. “The Division of Ratepayer Advocates is very upset about all of this. But there’s nothing that can be done about it. This is only the start. When we get closer to the 33 percent requirement, it’s just going to get worse, because the resources will be even more expensive.”

Shortly after the PUC approved PGE’s 25-year contract for the Mojave project in November 2011, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates sent out a press release headlined, “DRA Troubled By Continued CPUC Approval of Overpriced Renewable Projects.” It pointed out that the CPUC had also recently approved the overpriced North Star Solar project in Fresno. Both approvals ignored the legislative directive to contain costs.

“The Commission has the power to keep the cost of renewable energy reasonable,” said DRA’s acting Director, Joe Como. “Instead … it is signaling to the market that California will accept overpriced renewable energy, and that it is willing to lock customers into higher rates for decades to come. I agree with Commissioner [Mike] Florio [the only vote against the Mojave project], who said that we should be getting twice the amount of renewable energy for the price of this contract.

“The CPUC must get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and it can’t do that by ignoring the costs. DRA strongly supports the state’s renewable energy goals, but fears that customer backlash against high energy bills will hurt the state’s efforts. Sending a message to renewable energy developers and investors that the cost of renewables must be reasonable will support the effort to reach California’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas. We simply can’t afford to do otherwise.”

Encouraging Development

One of the encouraging developments in renewable energy recently is the significant price drop for photovoltaic energy due to the increased production of solar cells (ironically a contributing factor in Solyndra’s demise because its products were made at a higher price). The cost of these systems dropped 19-23 percent in California (depending on the size of the system) from late 2008 to mid-2010. But, at the same time the utility bid prices for photovoltaic systems actually increased, according to the DRA.

Also concerned about the increased cost of renewable energy is the state watchdog agency the Little Hoover Commission. It held a hearing Feb. 28 at which Commissioner David Schwarz asked what can be done to get the CPUC to put the brakes on the renewable energy “spending binge.”

Matt Freedman, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, responded, “The era of approving overpriced renewable generators has passed. Most were in 2008, 2009. For years the PUC has pretty much approved whatever the utilities wanted. It goes to the oversight of utilities by regulators who feel it’s their job to give the utilities what they want when they want it. There’s been a spending binge.”

But that binge may not be over, according to Como, who said, “The commission has accepted all but two contracts in the last several years. There have been about 170 contracts from 2003, and only two have been rejected. It does speak a lot to the fact that there are political and other pressures that go into the final decision other than ‘best fit, least cost’ analysis. I think we are still looking at contracts that are overpriced. The prices are confidential. But we do look at the trends.”

Schwarz accused Como’s group of not sufficiently advocating for ratepayers by not fighting the confidential pricing system. “Aren’t you doing your constituents a disservice?” Schwarz asked. “I would like to see confidentiality lifted so we have transparency.”

Como responded, “I’m in support of modifying confidentiality, not lifting it. Three years of confidentiality may be too long. Six months to a year would be good. Nevada doesn’t have a confidentiality cloak on its procurement.”

Asked what the cost impact will be to customers in order to achieve the 33 percent goal, Como said, “It’s probably about 5 to 7 percent on a typical bill of a customer. The above-market costs that we have identified, that’s probably what the impact will be.”

Cost Unknown

But Freedman said that no one knows how much it’s going to cost. In 2009, a consultant estimated there would be a 7 percent increase, but that study is already out of date because “all of the assumptions are totally wrong in respect to price. For example, it was thought solar thermal, big mirrors in the desert, was going to be the primary way we would reach the 33 percent target. It assumed 7,200 megawatts of solar thermal. Half of that has been canceled. It assumed photovoltaics would cost between 29 and 47 cents a kilowatt-hour. We have been looking at prices in the 11-to-14 cent range approved last year. They are lower today than last year, and it looks like they will be going lower still. Every long-term model ends up being wrong. In the field of renewables, we have seen a very dynamic market with extremely fast-changing prices, more than anybody could ever predict.”

The energy experts are confident that California will be able to meet the renewable energy goal by 2020. The big question remains the size of the bill that Californians will get stuck with.

“It would be wonderful if we can make this work,” said a dubious state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad, who is also a Little Hoover commissioner. “To me right now the bottom line is what is the cost to the user. Particularly in a state where we have the second-highest unemployment in the country, where privately a very senior official in this government has said, ‘We all know the real rate of unemployment is closer to 17 percent,’ where the human cost is really, really, really difficult, and at the same time when we have some companies leaving. I just think at the end of the day we need to know: Can we deliver this in such a way that it doesn’t hurt jobs? We’ll see.”


Write a comment
  1. Soquel Creek
    Soquel Creek 19 March, 2012, 10:41

    According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which energy industry receives the largest federal tax subsidy? The answer may surprise you.

    Reply this comment
  2. David
    David 19 March, 2012, 14:18

    Excellently researched piece. A lot of this renewable energy stuff is too good to be true.

    Reply this comment
  3. Tom Tanton
    Tom Tanton 20 March, 2012, 08:22

    The price drop in solar PV, suggested as a bright spot, will soon disappear as trade sanctions against China are pursued by U.S. at the urging of the solar industry here. Basically the Chinese manufacturers are accused of dumping. BUt I personally find it hard to distinguish between Chinese dumping, supported by the Chinese government, and the equally distortinf and abusive subsidies given to solar (and wind.) At least, so far, the Production Tax Credit has failed extension.

    Reply this comment
  4. nowsane
    nowsane 20 March, 2012, 14:22

    And this is all because we are trying to lead the nation in stopping Global Warming, err Climate Change. But low and behold, we’ve seen many examples/evidence that the Earth has been cooling now for at least since 1998. But will California stop this rampage towards its own destruction, by insisting on a 33% renewable energy standard that is killing more than 1 million California jobs. Not if Moonbeam has his way with your money.

    Reply this comment
  5. Hank
    Hank 20 March, 2012, 18:53

    For ANY of these people to claim they don’t quite know what lies ahead is WILFUL ignorance! They could study the Spanish government report, the German government report, both studies were done by the government, not some NGO or biased group. Their conclusion, total disaster! The British who are on limited or fixed income have a term for their new lifestyle, Heat or Eat, delivered to them by renewable energy. This boondoggle is actually criminal and the agencies disclaimers are pure lies. There is ample factual information on just what a complete disaster this scheme is. It delivers about 5% of the claimed energy, it requires conventional back up and the cost to rate payers will be at least 25% to 40% greater, when Electricity is available. The factual results are readably available if honest people looked. This scheme is a disgrace and those responsible are crooks.

    Reply this comment
  6. C
    C 3 April, 2012, 18:18

    Comparing the costs of green energy to other grid power is a misnomer because:

    1) Coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear all receive massive government subsidies that dwarf those of the renewable energy industry and bring down their costs making most cost comparisons used by these industries complete falsehoods

    2) Most straight cost comparisons fail to account for added costs of dirty energy to the country

    3) NatGas, Oil and Uranium are all rapidly diminishing resources that only have a few decades left of availability

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

White Christmas v. "Warming"

John Seiler: Santa Claus brought a lot of presents this year. One of the best: more strong proof that there’s

New report: CA high-speed rail faces 50 percent cost overruns

SACRAMENTO –  California’s ongoing “high-speed rail” project connecting Los Angeles with San Francisco continues to run up against the same,

Hyperloop test track to break CA ground

Elon Musk proposed it years ago. This January, he announced he’d enable teams to test it out on a track