The California Energy Commission's (Energy Commission) 2004-2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Committee (Committee) will conduct a workshop to seek input for a study on accelerated renewable energy development. Commissioner
John L. Geesman is the Presiding Member and Commissioner James D. Boyd is the Associate Member. The workshop will be held:
May 4, 2004
Beginning at 10 a.m.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
First Floor, Hearing Room A
Audio from this meeting will be broadcast over the Internet.
For details, please go to:
As part of the 2004 IEPR update, the workshop will focus on four topics:
- Renewables portfolio standard (RPS) goals beyond 2010
- Possible re-calibration of specific utility goals
- The RPS as it applies to publicly owned electric utilities
- Discussion of tradeable renewable energy certificates (tradeable RECs).
The Committee is seeking the active participation of all interested parties in discussing these topics and defining the scope of this project; additionally, the Committee would appreciate written responses to the specific questions contained in Attachment A. Written comments may be submitted in advance of the workshop or as reply comments following the workshop. [See Workshop Comments].
The Energy Commission adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report every two years and updates the report every other year. In the 2003 IEPR, the Energy Commission stated that it would conduct a process to examine accelerated renewable development as part of the 2004 IEPR update. This part of the 2004 IEPR update will provide information and suggest policy steps to the Governor and Legislature regarding the acceleration of California's long-term renewable energy targets. In particular, we will explore accelerated RPS goals for the post-2010 period, statewide and for specific utilities, taking into account the specific resource mix of each utility, transmission infrastructure, and the resource potential and availability of cost-effective renewable resources.
The Energy Commission encourages members of the public to submit written comments. Written comments submitted before the workshop must be received by close of business April 30, 2004. Written comments may also be submitted at the workshop and parties will have the opportunity to submit reply comments following the workshop. Reply comments must be received by May 10, 2004.
Parties may file a single copy electronically with the Docket Unit and follow up with an original copy by mail. The Energy Commission encourages comments to be submitted by e-mail so that comments may be posted on the IEPR proceeding web page. If you cannot send comments by e-mail, please provide original and 12 copies by mail or in person to the Energy Commission's Docket Unit. All written materials filed with the Docket Unit through e-mail, regular mail, or in person will become part of the public record in this proceeding.
If filing comments by e-mail, please send one e-mail to [firstname.lastname@example.org] with the "03-IEP-01 and "03-RPS-1078" subject line, and follow up with one original copy to the address below. Otherwise, please send or deliver written materials to:
California Energy Commission
Re: Docket Nos. 03-IEP-01 and 03-RPS-1078
Docket Unit, MS-4
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-5504
The Energy Commission's Public Adviser, Margret J. Kim, provides the public assistance in participating in Energy Commission activities. If you would like information on how to participate in this workshop, please contact the Public Adviser's Office by phone at (916) 654-4489 or toll free at (800) 822-6228, by FAX at (916) 654-4493, or by e-mail at [email@example.com]. If you have a disability and require assistance to participate in this workshop, please contact Lou Quiroz at (916) 654-5146 at least five days in advance.
If you have questions on the technical subject matter of this notice,
please call Tim Tutt at (916) 654-4590 or by email at
[firstname.lastname@example.org]. News media inquiries should be directed to
Claudia Chandler, Assistant Executive Director, at (916) 654-4989.
Date on line: April 20, 2004
JOHN L. GEESMAN
Commissioner and Presiding Member
2004-2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Committee
JAMES D. BOYD
Commissioner and Associate Member
2004-2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Committee
Mail Lists: IEPR, Renewables (New, Emerging, Existing, SB 1305, RPS.xls, CMUA)
Questions on Accelerating Renewable Energy Development
Accelerated RPS Goals Beyond 2010
Renewable energy development in California is currently progressing through incentives provided under the Renewable Energy Program (REP), established in 1997 and continued in 2002 by Senate Bill 1038 (SB 1038, Sher, Chapter 515, Statutes of 2002), and a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), established in 2002 by Senate Bill 1078, (SB 1078, Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) which requires retail sellers to increase their sales of electricity from renewable sources to achieve 20 percent by 2017. Since the RPS legislation was passed, three state energy agencies have adopted the Energy Action Plan. (The three agencies are the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Power Authority.) The Energy Action Plan establishes a more aggressive goal for renewable energy development, with a target of 20 percent by 2010. In the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), the Energy Commission confirmed support for the target of 20 percent by 2010 and concluded that more ambitious, longer-term goals may be warranted for the post-2010 period.
- Should the state pursue additional renewable development beyond 20 percent of retail sales by 2010 through either mandates or incentive structures?
- What benefits and barriers are there associated with accelerated renewable development beyond 2010?
- How and when should the state's accelerated goals be articulated, implemented, and evaluated?
- How should these goals be adjusted as transmission availability, resource availability, and/or costs change?
Re-calibration of Specific Utility Goals
The 2003 IEPR further recommended that three issues should be considered in establishing more ambitious RPS goals: the specific resource mix of each utility, transmission infrastructure, and the availability of cost-effective renewable resources. To reach 20 percent renewables by 2010, at least one utility will need to add only a small amount of new renewable energy; others will need to add a large amount. In addition, because of the location-specific nature of some renewable resources, some utilities may have more abundant renewable resources than others. This may mean that individual utility targets should be developed to replace the Legislature's uniform statewide RPS goals.
- Should RPS obligations differ by utility or retail seller, or should the obligations remain equal statewide as in current law? Please comment on the following alternatives:
- Each entity achieves an equal percentage of its retail sales from renewables (following the current RPS structure);
- Each entity achieves an equal percentage of the estimated renewable potential within its service area;
- Each entity's percentage varies, accounting for differential renewable resource potential, deliverability, costs and value among areas, to maximize overall statewide benefits.
- How should the varying amount of renewable energy available within each utility area be taken into account?
- How should the transmission infrastructure, including utilization of existing transmission capability within and among utility areas, be taken into account?
- How should differential costs of resource development in relation to electricity rates in each area be taken into account?
- If differential targets make sense economically, should they be mandated or achieved through incentive structures? What mandates or incentive structures would you suggest?
RPS As It Applies to Publicly Owned Electric Utilities
SB 1078 also contains requirements for publicly owned utilities to support statewide renewable energy development plans. In the 2003 IEPR, the Energy Commission stated its plans to work with the publicly owned utilities to address issues affecting their efforts to implement California's RPS goal.
- What progress have publicly owned utilities made toward developing plans for achieving the RPS goals?
- What implementation rules, such as facility eligibility criteria, do the publicly owned utilities plan to employ in implementing the RPS? Do they plan to consider electricity from large hydroelectric facilities as meeting RPS compliance requirements?
- How can publicly owned utility RPS procurement and transmission planning activities be best coordinated with statewide goals to achieve a cost-effective RPS?
- Some utilities have green pricing programs in which consumers pay a premium to support renewable energy procurement on their behalf. Should such programs be separate and distinct from procurement aimed at achieving the RPS? In other words, should renewable procurement for green pricing programs be counted towards the RPS?
- What barriers do publicly owned utilities face in accelerating the RPS target to 20 percent by 2010? In achieving goals beyond 20 percent?
Tradeable Renewable Energy Certificates
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) refers to the separable bundle of non-energy attributes or renewable characteristics of renewable electricity generation. The Energy Commission and the Western Governor's Association are presently working together to 1) establish a regional tracking system to provide necessary verification and tracking of RECs in the West for compliance with state RPS programs; and 2) facilitate commercial trading of RECs. The use of tradeable RECs separate from the associated electricity commodity - or "REC-only" transactions - was initially not allowed by CPUC rule for meeting RPS requirements. Many stakeholders have, however, recognized that tradeable RECs are a possible mechanism to meet RPS requirements. [Note: RECs associated with renewable distributed generation will be addressed at a separate workshop.]
- The CPUC June 19, 2003 decision regarding RPS states the following:
"Before we consider adoption of a REC trading system, we will need a clear showing that a REC trading system would be consistent with the specific goals of SB 1078 [e.g. public health, economic development, job creation, environmental, and other benefits anticipated by the statute], would not create or exacerbate environmental justice problems, and would not dilute the environmental benefits provided by renewable generation."
What information is available or should be developed to provide a clear showing of the type stated above? What are the necessary features of a REC trading system?
- How could tradeable RECs be used with in-state delivery requirements under the RPS? What benefits would their use provide in this context? What costs?
- If a REC trading system is adopted, how should, if at all, a market price referent be established for a REC-only transaction?
- If a REC trading system is adopted, how should, if at all, supplemental energy payments apply to REC-only transactions?
- How is the ownership of RECs affected when public goods charge funds support the associated renewable energy in the form of supplemental energy payments or other state or federal incentives?
- How is the ownership of RECs affected where general ratepayer investment in renewable energy is supplemented by private funding support in the form of green pricing premiums or other funding?