Tectonic shift.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rebecca Van Nichols" <rvan@tnag.net>
Date: Apr 8, 2013 2:27 AM
Subject: Nevada Utility to Shut Out Coal, Embrace Renewables | Renewable Energy News Article
To: "Monty Bannerman" <mbannerman@arcstarenergy.com>
Cc:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/nevada-utility-to-shut-out-coal-embrace-renewables?cmpid=SolarNL-Saturday-April6-2013
Nevada Utility to Shut Out Coal, Embrace Renewables
By Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
April 4, 2013 | 6 Comments
Do you like this news?
Email
Share
Bookmark Print Feed
Facebook
17
New Hampshire, USA -- Nevada's major public utility NV Energy announced Wednesday that it plans to shutter its four coal plants in southern Nevada and increase its investment in renewable energy and natural gas. Three of its coal plants will be shut down by 2014, and the fourth is scheduled to close its doors by 2017. NV Energy is calling its proposal "NVision," and included it as an amendment in Senate Bill 123.
The plan calls for 553 megawatts of coal to be replaced with 40 percent renewable energy, which will consist of solar, wind and geothermal, and 60 percent natural gas. According to the bill, NV Energy must own and operate at least 25 percent of its 600-MW renewable share and construct or acquire 1,000 MW of natural gas in the next five years, and 1,000 additional MW of natural gas in the 10 years – all of which is to be produced in Nevada. NVision is expected to create 4,700 construction jobs and more than 200 permanent operations and maintenance positions in the next 12 years.
"This does three things: it retires coal from Nevada, builds renewables, and it creates jobs," said Tony Sanchez, NV Energy senior vice president in a statement.
Despite these benefits, several groups have criticized certain aspects of the plan. For example, NV Energy predicts that the plan will result in a 4 percent price hike for consumers over the next 20 years – but Dan Jacobsen of the Bureau of Consumer Protection told the Las Vegas Sun that he believes rates would go up by 8 percent in the next ten years. The bill calls for ratepayers to recover the costs for closing the coal plants and the construction operations and maintenance of the new renewable energy facilities. If the bill is enacted, these hikes would begin on the first day of the next financial quarter.
"We must stop putting coal pollution in the air, but we also need to make sure NV Energy doesn't use this as an excuse to take even more money from ratepayers to pad its already enormous profits," said Bob Fulkerson, executive director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada to the Reno Gazette Journal.
The Sierra Club released a statement arguing that while it is good news for Nevada to step away from coal, natural gas fracking is not a long-term answer. The organization believed that NV Energy should invest in more renewable generation and energy efficiency efforts, which it argues could counter price hikes.
"Energy efficiency can put money right back into the pockets of consumers every month," said Jane Feldman, Sierra Club state Energy Task Force chair. "And if we build more renewable energy, costs remain stable for decades because the fuel costs for solar, wind and geothermal are free."
If passed, the Public Utilities Commission would have 210 days to review the bill and request changes.
Lead image: Closed sign via shutterstock
Geothermal Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
Joel_Fairstein
April 5, 2013
I agree with Ms Feldman of the Sierra club but would go one step further. For every dollar spent on future power projects, states and utilities should match it with a dollar spent on energy efficiency. In addition to improving the environment, freeing up money wasted on energy by end users would be a positive driver in local and state economies.
There are existing utility-based programs in place for energy efficiency, but in my area in Tennessee, the program involves a spaghetti of forms and energy audits. I wonder what the situation is like for energy efficiency programs in other areas of the country?
Comment
2 of 6
Anonymous
April 5, 2013
It would be interesting to know the ages of the 4 coal plants being shuttered. Are they older plants that are already nearing the end of their rated lifetimes? If so, we should question why the utilities are saying a large rate hike is needed to cover closing costs.
This section of the text is confusing: "The plan calls for 553 megawatts of coal to be replaced with 40 percent renewable energy and 60 percent natural gas. NV Energy must own and operate at least 25 percent of its 600-MW renewable share, and construct or acquire 1,000 MW of natural gas in the next five years..."
40% of 553 MW of retired coal targeted for new renewables would imply new renewables of 221 MW are needed if the percentages refer to capacity. Does the reference to "600-MW renewable share" refer to planned new capacity or does it include extant capacity? Does the phrase "must own" refer to some legal requirement or merely to some goal of the new plan? The article makes no reference to what type of renewables are planned; in NV the likely choices would be solar or geothermal power, but these have much different capacity factors, so it seems unusual to design growth targets based on capacity rather than production estimates.
Steven
Comment
3 of 6
bkarney
April 5, 2013
Dear fellow renewable energy advocates,
Can't we all, just for once, simply be happy for ONE MINUTE that 4 coal plants are closing? Can't we just enjoy this small bit of progress without expressing alarm, concern, or reservations? Without suggesting things that NV Energy should do differently, or instead, or in addition?
There will be plenty of time for all of those things in a minute or two.
Cheers,
Bruce Karney
non-Nevadan environmental activist
Comment
4 of 6
Bob_Wallace
April 5, 2013
I agree, Bruce. We do far too little celebrating of the progress we are making.
Yes, we need to be moving faster but we are moving and we are accelerating. Paying attention to our successes will make us feel better and make us more ready to take on the next challenge.
40% of 553 megawatts of coal production is being replaced with renewables. The other 60% with natural gas which is dispatchable. That means as the price of NG rises (as it will) utility companies will find it cost effective to install more wind and solar in order to lower their NG expenses. The gas capacity will be there to fill in until we develop less expensive storage.
220 megawatts of Nevada's generation will now be CO2 free. Solar and wind industries will be strengthened.
It's good.
Comment
5 of 6
Anonymous
April 5, 2013
Bruce writes in comment #3: "Can't we just enjoy this small bit of progress without expressing alarm, concern, or reservations?..."
If Bruce wants to close his eyes and dream happy thoughts rather than actually think that is fine by me, but he should not complain if others like to examine proposals before they become law and before a lengthy 210 day review period begins. It isn't clear if this article describes the proposal correctly, but if one replaces 40% of the old capacity with solar having a capacity factor of <25% you are really only going to get about 10% renewable generation and 90% of generation will come from fossil fuels. Is that really a good deal? Is coal capacity being retired early so that significant new fossil fuel capacity can be locked in for the long term? If so, I'm not sure an "environmental activist" should be especially happy. Does NV need new dispatchable power in the near future or are there other motivations for this reallignment? If utilization rates for this generation capacity are low consumers will get a socked with a hefty rate increase. CA is cutting back on the amount of coal generation they import from out of state and maybe NV has excess capacity now....
Bob writes in comment #4: "Solar and wind industries will be strengthened."
Are there any plans for new wind generation in NV? Certainly they don't have much extant capacity so it seems unlikely that new wind power will be part of this deal. Does Bob have evidence to support his claim or is he just engaging in psychic predictions?
Steven
Comment
6 of 6
j-p
April 5, 2013
Why can't we just be happy about NV Energy's p.r announcement about shutting down coal fired power plants? Because no one trusts this company here in NV! Horrible customer service (read yelp reviews) coupled with the HIGHEST kwh rate in the Intermountain West! They pushed through rate hikes during the recession because massive foreclosures meant less profits for investors (the only people they care about). The public utilities board is a lapdog and goes along despite massive outcry. NV Energy doesn't care about switching to renewables! I looked into solar for my house unfortunately you can only offset your bill plus a $10 a month fee. One extra panel and they will not meter it.
They want this to switch to move to natural gas which has more price fluctuations to charge more.
Don't be fooled!
Add Your Comment
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!
Sign up for our free e-Newsletters
NEW Smart Phone App
Meg Cichon
About: As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also res... more »
MEG'S ARTICLES
Rwanda Set To Start Major Geothermal Development
The Clouds are Getting Greener: Apple Data Centers Powered by 100% Renewables
Geothermal Deal Could Bridge the Gap for Future Development
More »
RECENT NEWS
Interior Recommends Removal of Four Klamath River Hydroelectric Projects
France Geothermal Energy Debate: When Is Fracking not Fracking?
BrightSource Shelves Another Major CSP Project
Market Trends: Renewables Growth Shifting from Europe to Emerging Markets
Energy Storage Series: Why We Need It, And Why We Don't
Advertise With Us
Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total AccessFeatured Total Access Partners
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising & Services | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Sitemap
News | Blogs | Finance | Video | Products | Companies | Events | Jobs | Magazines | Conference & Expo
Renewable Energy | Solar Energy | Wind Energy | Geothermal Energy | Bioenergy | Hydropower | Hydrogen & Fuel Cells
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: "Rebecca Van Nichols" <rvan@tnag.net>
Date: Apr 8, 2013 2:27 AM
Subject: Nevada Utility to Shut Out Coal, Embrace Renewables | Renewable Energy News Article
To: "Monty Bannerman" <mbannerman@arcstarenergy.com>
Cc:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/nevada-utility-to-shut-out-coal-embrace-renewables?cmpid=SolarNL-Saturday-April6-2013
Nevada Utility to Shut Out Coal, Embrace Renewables
By Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
April 4, 2013 | 6 Comments
Do you like this news?
Share
Bookmark Print Feed
17
New Hampshire, USA -- Nevada's major public utility NV Energy announced Wednesday that it plans to shutter its four coal plants in southern Nevada and increase its investment in renewable energy and natural gas. Three of its coal plants will be shut down by 2014, and the fourth is scheduled to close its doors by 2017. NV Energy is calling its proposal "NVision," and included it as an amendment in Senate Bill 123.
The plan calls for 553 megawatts of coal to be replaced with 40 percent renewable energy, which will consist of solar, wind and geothermal, and 60 percent natural gas. According to the bill, NV Energy must own and operate at least 25 percent of its 600-MW renewable share and construct or acquire 1,000 MW of natural gas in the next five years, and 1,000 additional MW of natural gas in the 10 years – all of which is to be produced in Nevada. NVision is expected to create 4,700 construction jobs and more than 200 permanent operations and maintenance positions in the next 12 years.
"This does three things: it retires coal from Nevada, builds renewables, and it creates jobs," said Tony Sanchez, NV Energy senior vice president in a statement.
Despite these benefits, several groups have criticized certain aspects of the plan. For example, NV Energy predicts that the plan will result in a 4 percent price hike for consumers over the next 20 years – but Dan Jacobsen of the Bureau of Consumer Protection told the Las Vegas Sun that he believes rates would go up by 8 percent in the next ten years. The bill calls for ratepayers to recover the costs for closing the coal plants and the construction operations and maintenance of the new renewable energy facilities. If the bill is enacted, these hikes would begin on the first day of the next financial quarter.
"We must stop putting coal pollution in the air, but we also need to make sure NV Energy doesn't use this as an excuse to take even more money from ratepayers to pad its already enormous profits," said Bob Fulkerson, executive director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada to the Reno Gazette Journal.
The Sierra Club released a statement arguing that while it is good news for Nevada to step away from coal, natural gas fracking is not a long-term answer. The organization believed that NV Energy should invest in more renewable generation and energy efficiency efforts, which it argues could counter price hikes.
"Energy efficiency can put money right back into the pockets of consumers every month," said Jane Feldman, Sierra Club state Energy Task Force chair. "And if we build more renewable energy, costs remain stable for decades because the fuel costs for solar, wind and geothermal are free."
If passed, the Public Utilities Commission would have 210 days to review the bill and request changes.
Lead image: Closed sign via shutterstock
Geothermal Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
Joel_Fairstein
April 5, 2013
I agree with Ms Feldman of the Sierra club but would go one step further. For every dollar spent on future power projects, states and utilities should match it with a dollar spent on energy efficiency. In addition to improving the environment, freeing up money wasted on energy by end users would be a positive driver in local and state economies.
There are existing utility-based programs in place for energy efficiency, but in my area in Tennessee, the program involves a spaghetti of forms and energy audits. I wonder what the situation is like for energy efficiency programs in other areas of the country?
Comment
2 of 6
Anonymous
April 5, 2013
It would be interesting to know the ages of the 4 coal plants being shuttered. Are they older plants that are already nearing the end of their rated lifetimes? If so, we should question why the utilities are saying a large rate hike is needed to cover closing costs.
This section of the text is confusing: "The plan calls for 553 megawatts of coal to be replaced with 40 percent renewable energy and 60 percent natural gas. NV Energy must own and operate at least 25 percent of its 600-MW renewable share, and construct or acquire 1,000 MW of natural gas in the next five years..."
40% of 553 MW of retired coal targeted for new renewables would imply new renewables of 221 MW are needed if the percentages refer to capacity. Does the reference to "600-MW renewable share" refer to planned new capacity or does it include extant capacity? Does the phrase "must own" refer to some legal requirement or merely to some goal of the new plan? The article makes no reference to what type of renewables are planned; in NV the likely choices would be solar or geothermal power, but these have much different capacity factors, so it seems unusual to design growth targets based on capacity rather than production estimates.
Steven
Comment
3 of 6
bkarney
April 5, 2013
Dear fellow renewable energy advocates,
Can't we all, just for once, simply be happy for ONE MINUTE that 4 coal plants are closing? Can't we just enjoy this small bit of progress without expressing alarm, concern, or reservations? Without suggesting things that NV Energy should do differently, or instead, or in addition?
There will be plenty of time for all of those things in a minute or two.
Cheers,
Bruce Karney
non-Nevadan environmental activist
Comment
4 of 6
Bob_Wallace
April 5, 2013
I agree, Bruce. We do far too little celebrating of the progress we are making.
Yes, we need to be moving faster but we are moving and we are accelerating. Paying attention to our successes will make us feel better and make us more ready to take on the next challenge.
40% of 553 megawatts of coal production is being replaced with renewables. The other 60% with natural gas which is dispatchable. That means as the price of NG rises (as it will) utility companies will find it cost effective to install more wind and solar in order to lower their NG expenses. The gas capacity will be there to fill in until we develop less expensive storage.
220 megawatts of Nevada's generation will now be CO2 free. Solar and wind industries will be strengthened.
It's good.
Comment
5 of 6
Anonymous
April 5, 2013
Bruce writes in comment #3: "Can't we just enjoy this small bit of progress without expressing alarm, concern, or reservations?..."
If Bruce wants to close his eyes and dream happy thoughts rather than actually think that is fine by me, but he should not complain if others like to examine proposals before they become law and before a lengthy 210 day review period begins. It isn't clear if this article describes the proposal correctly, but if one replaces 40% of the old capacity with solar having a capacity factor of <25% you are really only going to get about 10% renewable generation and 90% of generation will come from fossil fuels. Is that really a good deal? Is coal capacity being retired early so that significant new fossil fuel capacity can be locked in for the long term? If so, I'm not sure an "environmental activist" should be especially happy. Does NV need new dispatchable power in the near future or are there other motivations for this reallignment? If utilization rates for this generation capacity are low consumers will get a socked with a hefty rate increase. CA is cutting back on the amount of coal generation they import from out of state and maybe NV has excess capacity now....
Bob writes in comment #4: "Solar and wind industries will be strengthened."
Are there any plans for new wind generation in NV? Certainly they don't have much extant capacity so it seems unlikely that new wind power will be part of this deal. Does Bob have evidence to support his claim or is he just engaging in psychic predictions?
Steven
Comment
6 of 6
j-p
April 5, 2013
Why can't we just be happy about NV Energy's p.r announcement about shutting down coal fired power plants? Because no one trusts this company here in NV! Horrible customer service (read yelp reviews) coupled with the HIGHEST kwh rate in the Intermountain West! They pushed through rate hikes during the recession because massive foreclosures meant less profits for investors (the only people they care about). The public utilities board is a lapdog and goes along despite massive outcry. NV Energy doesn't care about switching to renewables! I looked into solar for my house unfortunately you can only offset your bill plus a $10 a month fee. One extra panel and they will not meter it.
They want this to switch to move to natural gas which has more price fluctuations to charge more.
Don't be fooled!
Add Your Comment
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!
Sign up for our free e-Newsletters
NEW Smart Phone App
Meg Cichon
About: As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also res... more »
MEG'S ARTICLES
Rwanda Set To Start Major Geothermal Development
The Clouds are Getting Greener: Apple Data Centers Powered by 100% Renewables
Geothermal Deal Could Bridge the Gap for Future Development
More »
RECENT NEWS
Interior Recommends Removal of Four Klamath River Hydroelectric Projects
France Geothermal Energy Debate: When Is Fracking not Fracking?
BrightSource Shelves Another Major CSP Project
Market Trends: Renewables Growth Shifting from Europe to Emerging Markets
Energy Storage Series: Why We Need It, And Why We Don't
Advertise With Us
Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total AccessFeatured Total Access Partners
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising & Services | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Sitemap
News | Blogs | Finance | Video | Products | Companies | Events | Jobs | Magazines | Conference & Expo
Renewable Energy | Solar Energy | Wind Energy | Geothermal Energy | Bioenergy | Hydropower | Hydrogen & Fuel Cells
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
No comments:
Post a Comment