Cost, Reliability and the Zero-Carbon Grid

Dominion’s Scott Solar Facility.

by James A. Bacon

Kevin Hennessy, Dominion Energy’s senior director of state affairs, expresses confidence that the electric power company can meet the Northam administration’s goal of creating a zero-carbon electric grid in its service territory by 2045. It does take a leap of faith that electric batteries or some other energy storage system will make great strides in efficiency, he admits. Also, he caveats, it’s essential to continue generating nuclear power. Further, he acknowledges, costs and rates will go up. But the job can be done.

Ask Hennessy about gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s plan to accelerate the shift to a zero-carbon grid by 2035 — a decade earlier — and you get a very different response. The Dominion exec professes not to know much about the proposal, which appears in McAuliffe’s plan for fighting climate change, and did not address it directly. But he does observe that Dominion’s internal projections show consumption of natural gas through 2035 — even as solar and wind generation surge.

Because wind and solar are intermittent power sources, the utility must maintain a fast-reaction capability to dial production from other sources up and down. Combined-cycle natural gas plants are the only viable alternative right now. Electric batteries are in the pilot project stage. Likewise, hydrogen fuel cells are highly experimental.

“As coal ramps down, gas will continue to ramp up through 2035,” Hennessy says. “Unless there’s a breakthrough in the price and duration of batteries, it puts the pressure on us to maintain a mix of energy sources.”

I had the chance to debrief Hennessy over coffee this morning. I wanted to query him on how Dominion plans to reach its zero-carbon goals without inflicting Virginia with a Texas-style grid meltdown, California-level electricity rates, or disruptions like the wind-dependent United Kingdom is experiencing now as a result of unseasonably weak winds.

Dominion’s challenge is to balance three competing criteria: reliability, cost, and sustainability, he says. Reliability tops the list. Dominion’s number one job above all others is to keep the lights on. All the time. Not just 364 days of the year, but during the hottest hour of the hottest day.

In Hennessy’s estimation, cost is number two on the list, although he sounds less emphatic than he does when it talks about reliability. And, of course, Dominion wants its energy to be clean. Even if a green ethic was not a part of the company’s traditional corporate culture, political pressure has elevated sustainability as a top priority.

Regarding cost, Dominion has increased its rates less than 1% annually since 2008, Hennessy says. (That sidesteps a huge debate over the size of Dominion’s excess profits and the reinvestment of those profits in its grid-transformation projects, but that is a separate issue.) Looking ahead, the company expects rates to increase 2.8% annually. The shift to a cleaner electric grid will cost ratepayers.

(The McAuliffe plan engages in magical thinking. It maintains that ratepayer costs can be brought down through investments in energy-efficiency: a mere 2% annual investment in energy-efficiency programs over ten years could reduce power bills by 12%, it says. But the State Corporation Commission has analyzed a dozen or more energy-efficiency programs and found only a few that provide a worthwhile return on investment.)

While Dominion is not moving as rapidly as some environmentalists would like, it has pivoted dramatically from coal, nuclear and natural gas toward wind and solar. Plans are far advanced to build a $7.8 billion, 2,6 gigawatt wind farm off Virginia Beach, the first of two phases of development. Meanwhile, over and above previous solar investments, the company company committed last month to 11 new utility-scale and some smaller projects, including battery-storage, capable of producing 1 gigawatt of output.

Ramping up renewable energy production to about 30% of total output is possible without risking significant disruptions to the stability of the electric grid. Going beyond that level entails far more risk and more re-engineering of the grid. The McAuliffe plan suggests that solar can make huge inroads by retrofitting panels on rooftops in a so-called “distributed” grid, but that ignores the reality that small-scale projects cost far more than utility-scale projects with huge economies of scale. Apparently, McAuliffe is banking on massive subsidies from the infrastructure bill that is hung up in Congressional deliberations.

Battery storage is often touted as the solution to the intermittency of solar and wind. Dominion has four pilot projects. One is a combined “solar plus” project in Powhatan County, combining a solar facility with storage. The idea is to store excess solar electricity in the batteries and release it up to four hours later when the sun has gone down but residential demand has picked up. The second project, in the Town of Ashland, is designed for an entirely different use: to extend the life of other equipment on the grid. It represents a potential operations & maintenance improvement.

There is no pretense that battery storage is economically feasible on a large scale at present, that batteries can shift supply more than a few hours, or that they could help weather an extreme weather event lasting several days such as the Polar Vortex. Hennessy also is candid that Dominion is betting that technology will bring the cost of battery storage down, and that surging demand for cobalt, nickel and lithium — critical elements in batteries — won’t outpace production and drive up prices.

“It’s not a panacea, it’s a journey,” says Hennessy. “Can we shift load? Can we sculpt load? We’re still trying to figure out the best value.”

Other energy-storage candidates are hydrogen fuel cells, but that technology is even more experimental, and pumped-storage dams, for which there are a scarce number of sites.

Another challenge meeting a 2035 goal for a zero-carbon grid is finding locations for solar farms. Sites are limited. Large-scale projects need to be located close to existing transmission lines or the economics don’t work. Small projects can tap into local distribution lines but they lack the scale need to meet the politically mandated targets. Some localities don’t want solar farms at all. Others are willing to tolerate a limited number. Getting projects permitted can take a couple of years. And then the large-scale projects sit in a queue a few years more awaiting permission from PJM, the regional transmission grid.

“We’re issuing RFPs, talking to localities, talking to landowners,” says Hennessy. Dominion and its solar-development partners have captured the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. Getting permits could get increasingly different over time, he worries. Dominion is exploring options like siting solar farms on old strip mines, where there are few alternate uses of the land. Meanwhile, he adds, “we’re trying to be thoughtful and deliberate about the conversations.”

I raised one more issue. By moving to an all-electric economy, including buildings and automobiles, are we creating a system vulnerable to catastrophic failure? Hennessy does not answer that question directly. He says, “We have always been advocates of a diversified fuel mix.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

21 responses to “Cost, Reliability and the Zero-Carbon Grid”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Those nukes will be dang near 70 years old in 2045. It’s hard to imagine that there will be little or no technology advancement for nukes as well as storage and energy use.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Just a note. I think I have the perfect definition of systemic racism… it is the systematic placement of racists in within the system.
      https://abovethelaw.com/2021/10/law-school-student-famous-for-saying-i-hate-black-people-now-has-prestigious-federal-clerkship/

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yeah. Maybe this is the kinda stuff that makes people put F-UVa signs on doors, eh?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yes. I have no doubt we still have racism embedded in our culture and society, even JAB was relating the “banjo playing” next door to people of color – but I still think the “Kendi way” of addressing it is a fail and will actually engender a backlash even from people who know there is still a problem that needs to be addressed.

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2021/10/2020-IRP-Capital-List.jpg

    Maybe with this SCC chart I can persuade you, Jim, that to get to 5.2 MW in the offshore project, it will take far more than $7.8 billion in construction cost. And those numbers are getting long in the tooth….How about $17B plus in capital and $37 billion in lifetime revenue requirement. Please stop providing the huge discount. 🙂

    I completely agree that as outlined in the VCEA, there will be so much duplication and backup that reliability should be achieved. You can also see about 1GW of new gas plants on that list above. But that kind of redundancy really costs ratepayers.

    One of my favorite headlines: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/taken-like-hicks-at-a-carnival/

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Rubes. The correct term is Rube. The carny call to arms is “Hey Rubes!”

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Ambitious used to be a good thing.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The interview was revealing. Dominion can reach 30% WITHOUT SERIOUS DISRUPTION and they are STILL TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST VALUE. How does he define Serious? If they haven’t figure our the BEST VALUE why are they committed to a gigantic wind farm off shore?
    Getting to zero is easy if cost is no concern and you can buy credits and import electricity. Yes, Rube is a good word.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I actually AGREE with you in CONCEPT but I ask you this. When we banned lead in gasoline. When we mandated fuel efficiency in cars. When we banned CFCs.
      When we started shutting down coal plants.

      Didn’t we also have similar debates? Where were you in the prior debates? Pro or Con?

      I was Pro. I believed we could do it even though we had no absolute assurances.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        I assure you, this we cannot do. Not without at least nuclear as baseload. Sometimes the wind don’t blow and too often the sun don’t shine, and the idea of weeks and weeks of battery storage is classic insanity. Improving auto IC efficiency is a different debate than totally banning the IC engines, which is what you are now for….

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          You know what I’m “for”? More issues with your own thinking methinks!

          Yes. Sometimes the sun don’t shine and certainly at night and the wind don’t blow but hardly nowhere at the same time or ever…

          which is Conservatives basis binary thinking argument when they oppose change.

          I AGREE with you about Nukes. Some does Bill Gates and EDF and other “liberals” by the way.

          I have a LOT of confidence that we WILL overcome existing technological barriers to better, safer, nukes …

          but I ALSO have the same level of confidence on other technologies like batteries and more widespread and efficient wind/solar.

          Really no different than my confidence in removing lead from gasoline, mileage standards , AND YES – the advent of electric vehicles despite all the boogeyman hysteria promoted by the same folks who did the same thing back when we banned lead and mandated mileage standards.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        you are comparing apples and oranges. The technology to do those things was basically known. Most of the debates had to do with time.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          technology basically known?

          you mean it’s static and will not change?

          It WILL evolve. Take my word. History shows it.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You are flat out wrong. Oil companies knew the chemistry for removing lead and auto companies knew the technology for improving mpg. It also added to cost.
            I never said that technology was static. Why do you continue to make up things that I never said?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If they DID then why did they fight it so long and hard?

            Anytime someone makes the statement that “technology is known” – I question that view. Technology evolves continuously and improves.

            The cars that originally ran on unleaded had problems. I’m sure you remember that.

            The cars that met the mileage mandates also had problems. I’m sure you remember that also.

            The technology that was known back then when they first implemented lead-free gas and mileage standards – at that time – has changed and gotten a lot better and that’s exactly what will happen with other issues like renewables, nukes, storage and related.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Trying to get you to focus on facts and what I have said is like giving medicine to a dead person.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m focused on facts but the facts include technology continuously evolving and no one should argue that we’re not going to see more of it in the coming years for producing electricity.

            It’s going to happen. It’s happening now.

            You and I BOTH AGREE we want better NUKES – right?

            so what are you really arguing?

            If you argue that storage technology won’t likely advance, would you argue that about nukes also?

            I think BOTH …. WILL advance… no question.

    2. My apologies if my language was imprecise. The “figuring out the best value” reference was to battery storage. The best value may not necessarily be shifting supply a few hours, it may be helping other pieces of equipment operate more efficiently. (I did not pursue that particular point, so I don’t know what equipment he was talking about.)

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The idea that wind/solar are intermittent is relevant but it’s also relevant that if a lot of wind and solar is built widescale geographically AND is used when it IS available that LESS gas will be burned.

        THAT point is not being made in your posts.

  5. Jim, you (or Dr. Hennessy, not certain) begin with this premise: “Because wind and solar are intermittent power sources, the utility must maintain a fast-reaction capability to dial production from other sources up and down. Combined-cycle natural gas plants are the only viable alternative right now.”

    I don’t quarrel with your basic point, we need cycling generation that can complement the daily swings in solar and wind power; but I want to take strong exception to one thing you said: it is NOT true that “the utility” (that is, Dominion Energy) must do this alone, or even primarily, by itself. That is the entire purpose of belonging to an RTO such as PJM. Dominion’s retail arm, Virginia Power, is a member of PJM. PJM is a large group of utilities with an integrated economic dispatch of all the generation in a region spanning 12 states and stretching from Cape Hatteras to Minnesota.

    The most cost-effective thing for Dominion Energy to do for its customers’ sake is to build whatever generation is most needed within the PJM blend, and buy from PJM whatever generation is in oversupply. Dominion has no operational reason to build generation of a type that is in oversupply in PJM, and that’s simply because there’s too much competition across PJM to sell that kind of generator’s output profitably. The only reason Dominion would build generation that’s no longer needed is because, the way Dominion accounts for it, the investment goes into Virginia Power’s retail rate base and, through automatic retail rate adjustment clauses, provides Dominion with a healthy return on investment — whether the units actually run, or simply sit there.

    If Dominion wants to build more solar, or batteries, or wind turbines, or even gas turbines, fine — but it should be building ALL of these on the shareholder’s nickel, with the entire proceeds also going to shareholders. Leave ratepayers out of this and build such units as “merchant” plants through a Dominion subsidiary that does not affect retail rates; no automatic retail rate escalation clauses! In that event you’d quickly see Dominion’s attention turn exclusively to the sorts of generating units that are, in fact, profitable to build and operate today.

Leave a Reply