Latest news with #RenewablePortfolioStandard
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Clean Power Alliance Launches its 2025 Clean Energy and Reliability Request for Offers
RFO Addresses Tariff and Tax Credit Uncertainty While Seeking Additional Renewable Energy and Reliability Resources for Southern California Customers Los Angeles, Calif., May 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Clean Power Alliance (CPA), the nation's leading green power provider and the largest community choice energy aggregator in California, today announced the release of its 2025 Clean Energy and Reliability Request for Offers (RFO.) This solicitation reflects CPA's continued commitment to clean energy, grid reliability and innovative procurement practices. Building on the framework of its 2024 Clean Energy and Reliability RFO, the 2025 RFO has several key updates, including tariff and tax credit price adjusters to address potential changes in equipment-related tariff costs and federal tax policy. 'As market and policy conditions continue to shift, CPA is proactively updating its procurement approach to secure affordable, clean and reliable energy for the communities we serve,' said Ted Bardacke, CPA's chief executive officer. 'This RFO reflects our commitment to both progress and proactive problem-solving by offering developers clear guidance and options to keep projects on track during a time of policy and regulatory uncertainty.' The 2025 RFO invites proposals across six distinct product categories: 1. Renewable Generation OnlyIncludes baseload or firm renewable energy resources that qualify under California's Mid-Term Reliability (MTR) requirements and achieve an annual capacity factor of at least 80%. Also includes standard RPS-eligible resources such as solar and geothermal projects. 2. Renewable Generation Plus StorageCombines RPS-eligible renewable generation with storage systems offering a minimum of four hours of discharge. Storage capacity must not exceed 100% of the generation nameplate capacity. 3. Stand-alone StorageStorage-only projects providing a minimum of four hours of energy capacity, supporting grid flexibility and reliability during periods of peak demand. 4. Resource Adequacy-OnlyResource adequacy-only offers from qualifying technologies, including storage or dispatchable thermal resources, to meet regulatory reliability requirements. 5. PCC1 Energy-Only (Fixed Price or Index-Plus)Offers of RPS-eligible generation—such as solar, wind or geothermal—priced either at a fixed rate or as index-plus contracts. These are classified as PCC1 for compliance under California's Renewable Portfolio Standard. 6. Dispatchable Thermal Energy with RA ContractsIncludes existing gas-fired generation projects using cleaner operations, such as pairing with storage to reduce emissions or blending with green hydrogen or renewable biogas. These projects must include resource adequacy capacity and measures to minimize impacts on local air quality. CPA has traditionally focused its annual RFOs on meeting various California renewable energy and mid-term compliance requirements. However, CPA has already met or exceeded these compliance obligations, expecting to have a portfolio that is 80% renewable energy for 2024. As a result, this RFO seeks to fill a larger portion of CPA's energy and resource adequacy portfolio needs with long-term contracts that reduce the need for CPA to procure energy in the more volatile short-term market, thus helping to stabilize customers' electricity bills. To review CPA's Clean Energy and Reliability RFO click here. A webinar to inform about the RFO process will take place on June 3, 2025, at 11 a.m. (PST). Offers are due June 30, 2025. Proposers must register on the RFO website to receive RFO documents and participate in the webinar. About Clean Power Alliance Clean Power Alliance is the locally operated, not-for-profit electricity provider serving 38 cities and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. CPA is the fourth largest electricity provider in California and the number one green power provider in the United States. CPA provides clean renewable energy at competitive rates for approximately three million residents and businesses, along with innovative programs that promote resiliency, electrification, and customer bill savings. CPA has an investment-grade credit rating of A-minus from S&P Global Ratings. View CPA's most recent Impact Report here. Learn more about CPA at CONTACT: John Axtell Clean Power Alliance 213-376-4850 Ext. 184 jaxtell@
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tech, tariffs, and Trump cloud NV Energy effort to reduce carbon footprint
Gov. Joe Lombardo and NV Energy CEO Doug Cannon at the utility'sDry Lake Solar Project north of Moapa. (Photo courtesy NV Energy) NV Energy is shrinking its carbon footprint and staying ahead of a state mandate to produce half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, the utility announced earlier this month in its annual report on efforts to comply with Nevada's Renewable Portfolio Standard, a mandate not only codified in law but enshrined in the state constitution. NV Energy announced that 47% of the electricity it sold in 2024 was from renewable sources, far exceeding the required renewable portfolio standard (RPS) threshold of 34% for 2024, and just under the 50% goal set for 2030. 'These renewable resources provide a fuel-free energy source reducing customer energy costs and also eliminate carbon emissions to help improve the environment,' says the company's news release. But some critics complain consumers aren't getting the full picture. They say NV Energy is relying on legislative loopholes baked into the equation – renewable energy credits that boost the utility's RPS results without the corresponding reduction in carbon emissions. The credits were designed to ease the transition of electric utilities from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to cleaner, greener energy sources. Absent the credits, NV Energy produced 29% of its electricity from renewable sources last year, which is below the mandated RPS of 34% for 2024. NV Energy did not respond to requests for comment. Nevada Consumer Advocate Ernest Figueroa, in a 2023 filing with the Public Utilities Commission, alleged NV Energy is fudging the percentage of electricity sales it reports from renewable energy sources, and would not meet its requirement if not for accounting practices that are being phased out. 'It is the statutory and regulatory loopholes in the accounting for Nevada PECs (Porfolio Enegy Credits) that allow the utilities to claim much higher percentages of PEC compliance,' the Consumer Advocate asserted in the filing. 'Like all other energy providers in the state, current Nevada law requires that energy providers report energy credits, not an energy standard, as part of the RPS,' a spokesperson for the utility said in 2023. In 2023, NV Energy executive Jimmy Daghlian told Clark County commissioners that hitting the 50% renewable threshold by 2030 'is going to be a challenge.' 'I'll be honest,' said Daghlian, vice president of renewable energy, during an update on the utility's efforts to transition away from fossil fuels..'We're seeing a lot of the costs go up. Battery prices have doubled in the last two years. Solar panel prices have gone up 40 to 50%.' 'While NV Energy technically meets its renewable targets, the numbers are inflated by older credits and accounting tactics, not by delivering more real renewable energy to customers,' Nevada Conservation League Executive Director Kristee Watson said via email. 'At the same time, NV Energy is doubling down on fossil fuels by building new gas plants, which undermines the cost savings, economic benefits, and public health improvements Nevadans should be seeing.' Until last year, NV Energy was permitted to use energy efficiency savings, known as demand-side management, to comply with up to 10% of its annual Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). As of this year, no credit for energy efficiency savings is allowed under state law. Three other credits remain available to NV Energy to demonstrate compliance with RPS mandates: Behind-the-meter credits represent renewable energy created by customers, such as rooftop solar panels; Station Usage credits reflect the energy consumed in some operations of geothermal facilities; and The solar multiplier, which credits NV Energy almost 2.5 hours of credit for each hour generated by a photovoltaic system installed before 2016. 'The Rube Goldberg-esque models used to calculate credits depend significantly on purchased credits from other companies in the solar/geothermal business, many of which will be subsidized by the construction of the Greenlink project,' says Boulder City resident Fred Voltz, a close observer of the electric utility. Greenlink, which has ballooned in cost from just under $2.5 billion to more than $4.2 billion, is designed to transport renewable energy generated in remote areas of the state. Greenlink's price tag is likely to increase even more, given President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on products and materials from Mexico, Canada, China and other nations. Obstacles on the path to a carbon-free future, according to Voltz, include the failure of battery storage technology to extend beyond four hours, and a water shortage that ensures 'no new U.S. hydropower projects of any consequence' will be built in the foreseeable future. Less than a week before a massive blackout hit Spain and other European nations earlier this month, Spain's electrical grid ran entirely on renewable energy for the first time on a weekday. The cause of the outage, which is still under investigation, may stem from a loss of power generation, likely from solar plants, resulting in instability in the system, experts say. 'As we learn by events just how essential a steady electricity supply is to modern living, it is regrettable to see the risk taking engaged in by those relentlessly pushing for renewable energy without concern for its down sides,' says Voltz, adding the grid failure in Spain should give pause to renewable energy enthusiasts. 'Neither the purchase of renewable credits nor the actual solar projects NVE spends ratepayers' money on to satisfy the government-fabricated market for renewable energy will change the need for conventional generating capacity to keep the grid stable and energized when renewables are not producing energy.' In Southern Nevada, where the sun shines an average of 294 days a year, and where until recently, the federal government subsidized the development of green energy, solar is the dominant player. Gemini, a contracted 690-megawatt solar facility with 380 megawatts of integrated battery storage, began operating in March of last year, NV Energy said in its news release on the RPS; Dry Lake Solar, a 150-megwatt facility with battery storage, opened a year ago; and NV Energy's 400-megawatt Sierra Solar in Northern Nevada is expected to begin battery storage next summer, with solar service beginning in 2027. The global supply chain for solar largely originates in China. Tiny photovoltaic cells that are imported from China and crafted by American companies into solar panels, are now subject to tariffs totaling 84%, according to a trade publication. Chinese companies have moved operations to south-east Asian nations in an effort to minimize tariffs. The Trump aministration's Golden Era of Energy Development secretarial order from the Department of Energy seeks to 'Advance energy addition, not subtraction,' a policy at odds with the 38 states that adopted renewable energy standards or goals. 'Great attention has been paid to the pursuing (sic) of a net-zero carbon future,' says the order from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. 'Net-zero policies raise energy costs for American families and businesses, threaten the reliability of our energy system, and undermine our energy and national security. They have also achieved precious little in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.' The Trump administration is seeking to limit the ability of states 'to adopt climate mitigation strategies (including cap and trade and renewable portfolio standards) and by taking new authority to permit development of reserves of fossil fuels and other minerals critical to the energy space,' says an article from the National Law Review, adding the actions 'portend radical changes to the balance between state and federal energy regulation if carried through.' 'If they can withhold congressionally appropriated research funds for universities because they don't like their policies with regard to free speech on their campuses, what else might they do?' San Francisco attorney Nico van Aelstyn wondered in a recent interview. 'Withhold Medicaid funding to states where they don't like their renewable energy standards?'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Utilities committee weighs proposals to harness more hydropower for Maine
The former Great Works Dam site between Old Town and Bradley, Maine on the Penobscot River. (via Penobscot River Restoration Trust) As Maine has honed in on solar and offshore wind to fulfill its clean energy goals, Republicans have introduced multiple bills this session to move the conversation forward on other renewable energy sources, including nuclear and now hydroelectric power. 'It is a smart, practical step toward reducing electricity costs for everyone in Maine, while making sure our renewable energy future remains affordable and reliable,' said Sen. Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin). 'I don't understand how this is not the right thing to do,' he told the Legislature's Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee during a public hearing Thursday that could tee up hydroelectric power expansion in the state. The committee meeting started nearly four and a half hours late because of a marathon session in the House of Representatives over the biennial budget, so some people who wanted to testify couldn't stay. Though hydropower is reliable, clean and affordable, it also has high upfront costs and some of the proposals could alter a valuable revenue stream for renewable energy generators. Three of the bills, including the one sponsored by Timberlake (LD 204), have to do with removing a current capacity limit on electricity sources that qualify for the incentives outlined in Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard. That standard spells out renewable energy goals and helps to stimulate interest for new investments in renewables. For Maine, those goals are currently to have 80% of electricity sales in Maine coming from renewable resources by 2030 and 100% by 2050. The standard also stipulates how much of that needs to come from new or existing resources. The other piece of legislation presented Thursday outlines a proposed study on expanding the use of hydroelectric power as well as developing geothermal energy sources in the state. Rep. Mathew McIntyre (R-Lowell) said he's open to amending his bill that currently proposes the Public Utilities Commission undertake the work. The commission, as well as the Office of Public Advocate, testified neither for nor against the study proposed in LD 300 but said it would be better suited for the Governor's Energy Office, which did a similar study in 2015. The Maine Renewable Energy Association shares the goal of expanding hydropower, but also supports a recommendation born out of the previous study. Hydropower is capital intensive and has a long payback period, which can make new developments cost prohibitive, said Executive Director Eliza Donoghue. However, she also said it is 'exceptionally reliable' and often outperforms other renewables. Waterflow in rivers isn't weather dependent like solar and wind, which causes those renewable energy sources to be more intermittent. While she isn't opposed to the study suggested in LD 300, she said her organization would focus on refining eligibility requirements under the renewable portfolio standard for existing hydropower in Maine. That change and other tweaks could create an additional revenue stream for current facilities, she argued. The other three bills presented to the committee also suggest small changes to the portfolio standard; however, Donoghue opposed these bills on the grounds that those particular changes would undermine the goal of in-state investment by welcoming in large-scale hydropower facilities located outside of Maine. Those bills would remove the 100-megawatt maximum capacity limit that currently exists for an electricity source to qualify as a renewable resource under the state's renewable resource portfolio requirement. While LD 371 from Sen. Joe Martin (R-Oxford) only looks to remove that cap for hydropower, LD 204 and LD 638 from Rep. Don Ardell (R-Monticello) would apply to other renewables including biomass generators, geothermal and more. LD 371 also seeks to amend the process for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to approve a new hydropower project. The department, however, opposed the bill saying those changes would not allow enough time for public input and certain federal requirements. Though hydropower facilities are not currently prohibited from being larger than 100 megawatts, going beyond that precludes them from a financial incentive, namely renewable energy credits, that come with qualifying for the portfolio. Renewable energy credits — often called RECs — track how much clean energy is being produced. Renewable energy generators like a hydropower or biomass facility that qualify as part of the state's renewable portfolio earn credits that they can sell. Those credits offer an additional revenue stream that clean energy generators can use to cover development costs. Rep. Gerry Runte (D-York) raised questions as to whether the economics of expanding or upgrading a hydropower facility hinges on those credits, which some of the bill sponsors asserted. He said he would like to see data comparing the cost of those projects with and without the credits. Removing the 100 megawatt cap could open the door for more renewable energy suppliers and ultimately reduce the value of the renewable energy credits, said Deirdre Schneider, testifying neither for nor against the bills on behalf of the Public Utilities Commission. While that reduction in value could lower costs for ratepayers, there was also discussion about it potentially deterring developers from coming to Maine. Similar to Donoghue, the Maine Forest Products Council opposed the bills out of concern that removing the cap would welcome large hydropower projects and dilute the value of those energy credits. As some biomass plants and pulp mills have shut down, the credits have become more valuable, said Executive Director Patrick Strauch, in written testimony. 'For years, Maine's RECs were essentially worthless until a limit was set almost two decades ago,' Strauch said. 'If these bills were to move forward, I am certain we would revert back to an environment where these RECs would be of little to no value.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Fox News
03-03-2025
- Business
- Fox News
The predictable outcome of California's green energy policies has arrived and it's a disaster
Back when I served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010, California ranked 7th or 8th in the nation for electricity costs. At the time, the Democratic majority in Sacramento was pushing bill after bill mandating greater reliance on renewable energy, assuring everyone that these policies would make us look like "geniuses" when the price of fossil fuels inevitably soared. I warned that these laws, regulations and subsidies would instead drive up electricity costs for Californians, making the grid less reliable and California's economy less competitive. Now, two decades later, the results are in. In 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that California had the second-highest electricity prices in the nation for the second year running, behind only Hawaii. The Golden State's misguided energy policies have steadily increased the price of electricity as green energy mandates, grid instability and regulatory burdens have taken their toll. Meanwhile, states with more balanced energy policies — natural gas, coal and nuclear power — have fared far better. What's worse, California's natural advantage in AI will be lost to Texas and other low-cost energy states. California's industrial electricity prices averaged 21.98 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2023 vs. 6.26 in Texas, a whopping 251% price premium that no electricity-hungry AI installation or server farm operator is going to pay. The core issue is simple: California's policymakers prioritized renewable energy mandates over affordability and reliability. Over the years, they have forced utilities to integrate ever-growing amounts of wind and solar power while discouraging natural gas, nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric projects. These decisions ignored the reality that intermittent renewables require extensive grid upgrades, costly backup power sources and expensive storage solutions — all of which drive up costs for consumers and industry. California's high electricity prices are not an accident; they are a direct consequence of these policies. The state's cap-and-trade system, restrictive permitting laws and mandates like the Renewable Portfolio Standard (which requires utilities to generate 60% of their electricity from renewables by 2030) have all contributed to rising rates. At the same time, bureaucratic obstacles have made it nearly impossible to build new natural gas plants or modernize existing infrastructure. From 2014 to 2024, California approved or built only five natural gas plants, four of which replaced older facilities for a total output of up to 4 gigawatts. By comparison, in the prior 10 years, California commissioned dozens of plants totaling more than 20 gigawatts of nameplate capacity. California is not alone in suffering from self-inflicted energy woes. New England, home to the third- and fourth-highest electricity costs in the country (Connecticut and Massachusetts), faces a similar problem. These states have aggressively shut down coal, resisted natural gas expansion and failed to invest in nuclear power — leaving them vulnerable to energy shortages and price spikes. One of the most baffling examples of New England's energy mismanagement is its reliance on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Despite sitting just a few hundred miles from the abundant natural gas reserves of Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale, New England has struggled to access this cheap, domestic energy source. Why? Because environmental activists and politicians in New York have blocked the construction of new pipelines that would transport affordable natural gas to the region. Instead, New England has been forced to import LNG from overseas, including from the Caribbean and, at times, even Russia. Yes, you read that correctly — while the U.S. became the world's top producer of natural gas, states in the Northeast have had to rely on foreign sources because of self-imposed pipeline constraints. This dependence on imported LNG has contributed to some of the highest electricity prices in the country and left the region exposed to global energy market fluctuations. California and New England serve as cautionary tales. When politicians prioritize ideological energy policies over common sense, the result is higher costs, reduced reliability and greater dependence on foreign energy sources. California is not alone in suffering from self-inflicted energy woes. New England, home to the third- and fourth-highest electricity costs in the country (Connecticut and Massachusetts), faces a similar problem. The states with the lowest electricity prices — places like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas — have embraced domestic energy production, built modern infrastructure and resisted heavy-handed government mandates. Meanwhile, California and the Northeast have imposed regulatory burdens that make energy more expensive and less reliable. The evidence is clear: Green energy policies imposed on energy markets have made life harder for working families and businesses in states that have embraced the Green New Deal. If policymakers in California and the Northeast truly cared about affordability and reliability, they would rethink their hostility to natural gas, allow new pipeline construction, and reconsider their blind push for intermittent renewables and the costly backups they require. Instead, they continue doubling down on the same failed policies. And as electricity bills rise and blackouts loom, the people paying the price aren't the politicians in Sacramento or Boston — they're the hardworking families who just want to keep their lights on without breaking the bank.
CBS News
13-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Advocates push for bill that would remove trash incineration from Maryland's renewable energy portfolio
Some Maryland leaders and sustainability advocates are pushing for legislation that would remove trash incineration from the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and use the funds for sustainable alternative forms of renewable energy. It comes after a South Baltimore community filed a complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over concerns about toxic chemicals coming from a trash incinerator. The Reclaim Renewable Energy Act, or HB220, would instead prioritize energy that comes from a Tier 1 renewable source, including solar, wind and geothermal energy. Energy derived from the ocean or from methane produced from decomposing organic materials in landfills or wastewater plants would also be prioritized. Under the bill, Tier 1 renewable sources would be eligible to be included in the state's RPS no matter when the system or facility was created. Renewable sources would also be eligible if they are generated at a dam that was built as of January 2004. However, the sources would only be eligible if they are connected to the electric distribution grid that serves Maryland or if they process wastewater from state residents. If the owner of a solar energy system moves to sell renewable energy credits, they would have to first offer to sell the credits to an electricity supplier or electric company to be applied toward compliance with the portfolio standards. "Trash incineration has devastating environmental and public health impacts, disproportionately affecting frontline communities like those in Baltimore City. The Reclaim Renewable Energy Act represents a critical step in Maryland's transition to Zero Waste, ensuring state resources support genuinely renewable energy solutions," advocates said. Trash incineration in Baltimore In May 2024, a South Baltimore nonprofit filed a civil rights complaint after residents raised concerns about inhaling toxic chemicals. Neighbors told WJZ they wanted the trash burning to stop, saying the toxic chemicals they were inhaling impacted their health and quality of life. They further called on Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and the Department of Public Works to send the trash elsewhere. The complaint, filed by the South Baltimore Community Land Trust, alleged that the city's Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plan does not do enough to divert trash from the BRESCO incinerator on Russell Street. In the complaint, the group said the toxic chemicals produced by the plant disproportionally impact Black and Hispanic residents in South Baltimore. "Our allegations are not that diversion is absent from the complaint but that it is not supported, and it is not fulfilled in a manner that would allow it to actually happen, to be actually implemented," said Taylor Lilley, an attorney with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and representing the South Baltimore Community Land Trust. By July 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would investigate the site. "The EPA is investigating this as a possible civil rights issue because there's a lot of people of color and lower-income people that are breathing in this particulate matter, mercury, and other very dangerous pollutants from the Baltimore trash incinerator," said Tom Pelton, spokesperson for the Environmental Integrity Project. At the time, Washington, D.C.- based nonprofit, The Environmental Integrity Project, said the announcement was promising, but added they would like to see the city move away from trash burning altogether.
