Virginia Needs a 21st Century Energy Plan-NOW

By Joe Nash • Feb 3rd, 2010 • Category: Energy, Feature

Between 1980 and 2005 Virginia increased its electricity use at an annual rate of 3.2 percent, a pace that would double in 22 years and then again in 44. Our per capita consumption of gasoline held at a fairly steady 530 gallons over that same 25 year time period. Currently, 20 percent of our electricity is imported, as are most of our transportation fuels. While conservation, efficiency gains and the move to electric vehicles will change the dynamics, Virginia will still need a substantial increase in production. It is also important to cut electrical imports to as little as possible. In fact a goal to be an energy exporter would be even better.

Virginia is currently ranked number one as a business friendly state and our natural resources provide us with a tourism attraction second to none. However, we cannot maintain this level unless we have a consistent, high quality supply of electricity and transportation fuels. Virginia needs a 21st century energy plan that takes these factors into consideration and provides definitive action items to ensure that our electricity and fuels needs are met. Putting new electrical and fuel resources in place is a time consuming process; new power plants take 10 to 20 years from planning to startup. Moving from upgrading our current grids to a series of smart grids will take many years. Because of that, we need an energy plan that covers the short term (up to 15 years), the mid term (up to 30 years) and the long term (up to 50 years).

The VEP21 should contain sections on the following:

1. Demand

a. Electricity

i. Base-load – 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ii. Peaking – high demand (hot summer; cold winter)

Decision makers need reliable analyses to indicate low, middle and upper bounds for our energy needs. An example may be to use the low projection based on the results of conservation and efficiency analyses included in the 2007 Virginia Energy Plan. The upper bound could be the annual rate of increase adjusted for additional electrical use in vehicles. The mid range would be in between the two. Both Virginia and the U. S. Department of Energy maintain excellent records on energy use in Virginia. What we need are analyses to project energy use for the next 50 years.

b. Transportation fuels

i. Gasoline

ii. Diesel

iii. Natural gas

iv. Biofuels

v. Electricity

Transportation fuels include those used for personal, commercial and rail needs. Virginia and the Federal Government maintain records of fuel use. Projecting fuel use will be complicated due to the introduction of electricity, use of hybrid fuel (diesel/natural gas engines) and biofuels.

2. Supply

a. Electricity

i. Base-load

1. Coal

2. Nuclear

ii. Peaking

1. Natural gas

2. Oil

3. Renewables

b. Transportation fuels

i. Gasoline

ii. Diesel

iii. Natural gas

iv. Biofuels

v. Electricity

There are currently 22 coal-fired power plants, two in planning, four nuclear plants and one in planning. There are a number of peaking plants around the state and 20 percent (base-load and peaking) is imported. Projections need to include replacing older plants and decreasing imports.  Transportation fuels are mostly in place except for electricity and biofuels.

3. Delivery

a. Electrical grids

i. Existing

ii. Smart grids and meters

b. Transportation fuels

i. Existing

ii. Biofuels

iii. Electricity

Electrical grids are an important area to analyze. Our grids from the 1960s and 70s are old and outdated. They are analog and many feel that for smart grids to work we need digital. The plan also needs to analyze the application of smart meters that communicate both ways. Adding in new forms of energy production and a very complicated analysis will be required. Transportation fuels will require changes and updates to accept new fuels, especially electricity.

4. Conservation/efficiency

a. Electricity use

b. Transportation fuels use

Virginia’s 2007 energy plan had extensive discussions on conservation and efficiency that involve a significant investment of funds ($200M per year for ten years by consumers and $100M per year for ten years by utilities). This plan needs to conduct analyses that present multiple inputs that involve a range of funds varying from amounts much smaller than the 2007 plan up to those included in the plan. The analysis would also benefit from separating all new construction from existing.

5. Conclusions

6. Action items

The plan must have action items that are measurable and have a lead owner. If government has a lead or important support role, then that action must be assigned to a position/person senior enough to carry it through. Leads controlled by industry, co-ops or non-profits must also have a decision maker capable of seeing actions to their conclusion and the funds necessary to ensure it happens.

Virginia is at a crossroad. Either we decide to plan for the next 50 years now or we face energy shortages in the future. Those shortages will be caused by a lack of adequate capacity and an inadequate grid system. Virginia needs to be a leader in this effort and work with the various energy providers and grid owners. At the same time we need to find innovative ways to promote conservation and make our systems and structures more efficient.


Joe Nash Joe Nash has over 40 year’s experience as both a technical manager and policy analyst at EPA, DOE and the private sector. During that time he has been involved with the implementation and analysis of TSCA, FIFRA, FQPA, SDWA, CWA, CERCLA and RCRA. Mr. Nash has also provided support and policy input to five EPA projects involving rule-making on: engineered nano materials, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), TSCA Section 8 (a) and (d), priority testing of chemicals, and the implementation of the endocrine disrupter screening program (EDSP). Mr. Nash is currently consulting with a company to develop a business plan for advising Boards of Directors and CEOs of large and mid-size companies on strategies for attaining “GREEN” company excellence using the triple bottom line (TBL) approach of economic, environmental and social value. He was, for the last four years, President of the College of William and Mary's Advisory Board for the Thomas Jefferson Program for Public Policy. He was a member of the Board of Directors for an ISO 9000 & 14000 training company from 1979 to 1999. He has been a member of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition Board of Directors since 1999 and was a founding member of the Fairfax County Environmental Quality Advisory Council.
Email this author | All posts by Joe Nash

6 Responses »

  1. don’t think I caught what the per capita use of electricity is…was…and projected.

    Virginia, last I heard uses significantly more electricity per capita that California, New York and much of Europe and Japan…

    why?

    I think before we beat the drums for more electricity – we need to take a closer look at why our use is so high.

  2. Here in Loudoun County, we have a private entrepreneur Green Energy Partners, that has a wonderful idea for a natural gas fired combined cycle hybrid electrical power plant that to serve our County and region.

    See: http://www.loudounpower.com/

    This is a superb concept and one that we should use throughout Virginia.

    Our political blog community is already behind the project. See, eg: http://www.loudounpower.com/

  3. Correction:

    Make that http://thebulletproofmonk.blogspot.com/2009/03/loudoun-to-get-green-energy.html

  4. Why isn’t more money being invested in state incentives for residential and commercial energy efficiency upgrades and conservation? Virginia does not rank highly in this regard (see http://www.dsireusa.org). The percentage of money alloted for renewables is miniscule compared the hundreds of millions that are being given to our energy producing companies and taxed from private individuals. Taking demand off the grid by empowering homeowners to produce their own energy is smart policy and creating green jobs in Virginia will increase our tax base while reducing our reliance on the biggest producers. The size of those same companies shapes Virginia’s current energy policy – doesn’t this vex anyone else? It’s also worth mentioning that private energy production makes us less likely for power disruption due to terrorism or system overloads.

    Anyway, I write not just to rant – can anyone provide an explanation, and perhaps a way out?

    Incidentally, this is being typed in the morning of another snowy weekend at the end of which thousands of households will be without power – again.

  5. I think you are missing the point. You shouldn’t be looking for more electricity — you should be looking to cut your per capita usage. also, why wouldnt you be looking to press for a national plan rather than a state-only plan. The state by state concept is broken. Energy policy should be a national issue and not local. this is mainly due to the incredibly long cycles to adopt new technology as you rightly stated in your article.

  6. Thanks for the insights on energy policy & production. Conservation & innovation will assist in promoting a better energy policy, but may ultimately prove to be insufficnet to meet the needs of our Commonwealth.

    The ‘green jobs’ scenario seems to be proving to be a bogus & costly misadventure, as the fraud of carbon-based global warming has been exposed as a vast hoax. Accordingly, further thought on these initatives appears to be warranted.

    Hardening the electrical grid, a costly undertaking, is required to upgrade & protect the system, but off-shore drilling, as well as clean coal & nuclear power must be part of a dynamic paradyme, in my view. Fortunately, the VA senate recently passed an off-shore drilling initative. This is a good start for the McDonnell administration.

    Thanks for your work on energy issues. Your articles are insightful, interesting & informative.

Leave a Reply