Center of the American Experiment estimate of the cost per megawatt hour of different forms of electricity generation. The red section it adds to renewables is the cost of battery backup. Click for larger view.

by Steve Haner

First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

By 2050 Virginia’s transition to wind and solar power under the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) could add almost $200 a month on average to a residential electric bill. Previous estimates of the consumer cost of dumping all fossil fuels from power generation have focused on the next ten years or so, but a new analysis looks beyond that to the actual deadline for the completed conversion.

Commercial and industrial customers would see comparable explosions in cost. These projections are far higher than those prepared by our own State Corporation Commission for two reasons: the SCC estimates do not cover the later years when the utilities must reach full compliance, and therefore do not include all the coming new investments into the late 2030s and 2040s.

The Center of the American Experiment in Minnesota, which has looked at similar proposals around the country, estimates that Virginia energy ratepayers of all classes will need to pay out an extra $203 billion over two and a half decades, close to half of it the utility profit margin on the massive new solar, wind, battery and related transmission facilities.

The Virginia General Assembly is currently considering either repealing or amending the 2020 VCEA, which dictated that Virginia’s major electric utilities must eventually stop using coal, natural gas or other fuels that emit carbon dioxide.

Center of the American Experiment projection of residential costs of compliance with the Virginia Clean Economy Act out to 2050. This is cost per ratepayer, not an estimate based on a “typical” bill as the utility likes to do. Click for larger view.

For the periods covered by the SCC reports, the CAE report lines up closely on cost. But its 2050 combination of assets includes far more solar panels and battery storage than anybody has talked about so far and adds 7,500 megawatts of land-based wind turbines, in addition to the coming offshore wind mandated in VCEA. It assumes no more than the 5,200 megawatts of ocean wind turbines already included in VCEA, because of the high cost.

It predicts a total of 105,000 megawatts of generation and storage will be needed to reliably serve Virginia, about four times the current fleet. The amount of steady and reliable generation not dependent on the weather will decline from 25,000 megawatts now to 8,000 by 2050.

The authors of this study are not utility engineers or expert accountants and were hired by a partisan group leading the fight to repeal the VCEA. They rely on models to design a likely generation network that complies with VCEA, and estimate its costs based on current industry information in the public domain. The old rule applies: all models are wrong, but some models are useful. This is useful.

Their main point is one that has been made by others. The VCEA will introduce such a huge dependence on wind and solar assets that are subject to weather interruptions that massive battery installations will be necessary to back them up. Those installations will sit idle most of the time with the meter running. The authors have looked at performance data on existing wind and solar installations to predict how often and for how long that will happen.

 For example, based on hourly load forecast models, there are multiple 15+ hour time frames where the combined capacity of wind and solar – totaling nearly 64,000 MW in 2050 – produced at capacity factors below 10 percent. At times, the combined capacity factor hit zero.

In one of these instances, wind and solar produced at capacity factors below 10 percent for an 18-hour stretch, which came within a 64-hour period where the average capacity factor of combined wind and solar capacity was 11.6 percent and the highest it reached was 29 percent.

A 64-hour brownout? When your system depends on 51,000 megawatts of solar panels and 12,700 megawatts of wind turbines, calm and cloudy days are going to be a challenge. The nuclear and hydro plants which will remain in 2050 will not be enough to pick up the slack, and battery discharges are of limited duration. Since other states are also killing off their fossil fuel plants (and some are killing their nuclear) you cannot depend on imports to keep the lights on.

In this report, the cost of that battery backup is applied in estimating the levelized cost of energy for the new solar and wind. It adds about $28 per megawatt hour to the cost of the offshore wind plans, $43 per megawatt hour to any onshore wind, and about $45 per megawatt hour for solar. The utilities and environmental activists will violently resist including that calculation in the SCC cost analyses on new solar and wind projects.

But it should be there. Intermittency needs to be assumed and priced in. Batteries are not generators.

This will not work. The VCEA-created system mandated in state law will be unreliable and incredibly expensive. The utilities know this but won’t say it out loud. The SCC experts know this but haven’t been asked to project to 2045 or 2050. But both the utilities and the SCC are dancing around the truth, and even some Democrats may be waking up.

The CAE report seems to treat the Virginia electricity system as an organic whole, not focusing on the different companies and territories. Most of these costs will be imposed on Dominion Energy Virginia customers, about 70% of Virginians, and regional price variations may grow. The report also disregarded the huge tax incentives for renewable investments the utilities may reap, in recognition that those merely shift costs from ratepayers to taxpayers but do not reduce the real cost.

Democrats in the state Senate are expected to kill the repeal or reform bills pending. That also just shifts something but doesn’t avoid it. It shifts from now to sometime in the future the point at which Virginians realize this is not going to work, they cannot afford it, and start work on something viable.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “VCEA Added Costs Exceed $2,000 per Household?”

  1. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    What is the green “Utility Returns” for? Slightly over 20% of the total seems awfully high if it’s for return on investment.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      You apply a 10% profit margin on a $100 billion investment and collect it over 30 years and yes, a huge portion of the ratepayer’s total out of pocket cost is the profits. I think these guys said close to half. Now, they may have conflated profits and debt payments, but the ratepayer doesn’t see that difference. What does the payoff sheet on a mortgage say about interest over 30 years? 🙂 More than the house value, usually.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      You apply a 10% profit margin on a $100 billion investment and collect it over 30 years and yes, a huge portion of the ratepayer’s total out of pocket cost is the profits. I think these guys said close to half. Now, they may have conflated profits and debt payments, but the ratepayer doesn’t see that difference. What does the payoff sheet on a mortgage say about interest over 30 years? 🙂 More than the house value, usually.

  2. So, basically, our electric bills will double or triple. For that, Virginians will offset the CO2 emissions from, what, two or three Chinese or Indian coal plants constructed over the same time period?

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    All models are wrong. Remember Steve? Wonder who keeps saying that around here?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I said it in the column! But I think this is useful illustration that 100% unreliable renewable, even with a bit of nuke backup, is a wonderful demonstration of the law of diminishing returns. The plan needs baseload at a reasonable level.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “The authors of this study are not utility engineers or expert accountants and were hired by a partisan group leading the fight to repeal the VCEA.”

        Oh, that’s changes things from just plain wrong to out and out misinformation.

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Actually the authors are experts in this kind of modeling. Even an extremely simple model gets these kinds of numbers.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Tell ya what, Bubba, go get any economic projection from 1994 that went out 28 years and tell me how it matches with current conditions. Your choice.

            I’ll help you. Google “predictions from 1994 that came true” then set the search tools results to “past year”

          2. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            No economic projection needed. Let’s make it real simple. Dominion winter peaks around 16,000 MW. But peaks don’t last so let’s say they are averaging 12,000 MW. We get 5 cloudy days with little wind. Happens all the time. So we need a bunch of batteries. Here’s the math:
            5 days = 120 hours
            Times 12,000 MW= 1,440,000 MWh
            EIA projects batteries at $250,000 per MWh
            Multiplying gives 360 billion dollars
            Dominion says VCEA costs $50 billion so they are a tad low, but then batteries are not included.

            Bunhey, maybe it will stop being cloudy in Virginia.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “Let’s say” is your first mistake. A model is only as good as its assumptions.

          4. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            All reasoning proceeds from assumptions. Do you disagree with 12,000 MW? What number do you prefer?

          5. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            Mr. Wojick, you are oversimplifying. Dominion will still be interconnected with PJM. Energy will not cease to flow all across the PJM region simultaneously. The likelihood that the wind ceases altogether completely over Virginia (and the Atlantic Ocean) is itself far-fetched. You also fail to note that there will be over 4,000 of nuclear running during the theoretical night of no wind. The work’s largest storage battery already resides in Virginia, as you know. The Bath County pumped storage facility is capable of generating over 1,000 MW.

            You note that Dom’s peak load is about 16,000 MW in winter. The study assumes that 105,000 of NEW generation will be interconnected IN Virginia in 2050. That is a ridiculous assumption.

            If you “model” buying three or four (or 8) times what you actually need to buy, of course the price will be higher.

          6. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            We can add complexity if you like. I think of it as a card game, where you add one then I do, and so on.

            Re interconnection, yes that is what Dominion projected in their 2020 IRP. But in the new 2121 Update they correctly said that this is not feasible because everyone else is going W&S too. No one will have ten thousand or more of MW unused for Dominion to tap.

            As for wind, it need not cease, just slow down. Full power takes sustained wind over 30 mph, which almost never happens. A measly 10 mph gives almost no power. The Orr study assumes 10% but in fact we often get long duration high pressure systems with little wind for a week. In summer these Bermuda highs also create peak demand because they are our heatwaves. Also the Orr study just looks at 2 days and 3 nights with 10% wind and solar. Much worse are to be expected.

            Keep in mind that we are looking for reasonable worst case scenarios because that is what power systems have to be designed for. In this case it is minimum supply, rather than peak demand. A week without wind is certainly reasonable since they occur almost every year and they can cover the entire Mid Atlantic. In fact PJM is struggling with these issues.

            Re nukes, yes there are 3200 MW with another 1600 planned. Electrification trumps them. So does adding a 20% reserve. So does adding the fact that batteries do not operate between 100% and zero, more like 80% and 20%. Adding any one of these complexities negates the nukes. Note too that North Anna celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, so may not be around for another 25.

            Dominion’s big pumped storage holds just 24,000 MWh, while we need at least 1.4 million, much more if we make it complex. Say 3 million MWh.

            You cannot win this reliability game. No fossil cannot work, unless they build 10,000 to 20,000 MW in nukes and operate some of them as peakers. Orr’s cost and capacity numbers are actually very low.

          7. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Here is part of a recent article of mine on Dominion saying they cannot rely on imports to back up dark day solar:

            “The Dominion IRP actually points to this problem. Dominion argues that they cannot backup their solar and wind generators using imported power, because other utilities will be facing the same backup need. Here is a telling quote. In particular note the reference to solar generation and extended cloudy winter periods.

            There is a good bit of jargon but that can be ignored for our purposes. THE SCC is Virginia’s State Corporation Commission, which oversees Dominion’s electric power monopoly. PJM is the Mid Atlantic power coordinator. The DOM Zone is basically Dominion’s territory.

            Dominion says this: “The SCC directed the Company to consider market purchases during the winter from the PJM wholesale market or from merchant generators located in the DOM Zone.The Company is concerned that over-reliance on the market for purchases could present issues if other states within PJM build significant amounts of solar generation and those zones expect the market to provide energy at the same time the Company is expecting that energy (e.g., extended cloudy winter periods). If that were to become reality, either energy shortages or extreme price spikes would occur. Concerning purchases from merchant generators located within the DOM Zone, those generators would likely be needed to meet the non-DOM LSE load within the DOM Zone, which is also winter peaking.”

            The point is that without enough storage, extended cloudy winter periods can cause energy shortages (including protracted blackouts) and extreme price spikes. As we shall show, Dominion’s Plan C does not provide nearly enough storage to prevent such catastrophic results.”

            https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

        2. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Here is a simple version if you don’t like models: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/impractical-solar-power-illustrated-with-the-math/

          The math is arithmetic. Very political.

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Let’s make it real simple. Dominion winter peaks around 16,000 MW. But peaks don’t last so let’s say they are averaging 12,000 MW. We get 5 cloudy days with little wind. Happens all the time. So we need a bunch of batteries. Here’s the math:

      5 days = 120 hours
      Times 12,000 MW= 1,440,000 MWh
      EIA projects batteries at $250,000 per MWh
      Multiplying gives 360 billion dollars
      Dominion says VCEA costs $50 billion so they are a tad low, but then batteries are not included.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        And if we convert all our cars, trucks and heating to electric it about triples the MW, pushing the battery cost over a trillion dollars.

        These are painfully simple numbers that Dominion can’t seem to come up with. Their VCEA plan has just 16,000 MWh of batteries in it. But then they want to build all that wind and solar because the more they spend the more they make. Only after it is built will they discover that it does not do the job.

  4. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    That’s the way to get people on board for renewable energy. Charge more and drive down reliability. Although, in the case of Dominion Energy, I don’t think its level of unreliability can get much higher. Our block has experienced 11 outages since October 2020. I’m looking forward to getting my electricity from a Co-op in NC and having my backup generator, which has already been installed.

    It’s time to strip both sides’ nonprofit advocates of their tax-exempt status. Any entity that pays to lobby or influence public opinion should be subject to the federal income tax. That would clean up a lot of the pond scum that pollutes Washington, D.C.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Environmental groups out-number industry

  5. We pay for the risks, they get the benefit. If the shareholders and not the consumers were responsible for the increased costs, I’ll bet we’d see an entirely different story.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Whatever provides that sweet 8% dividend.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Not nearly 8%. See below FYI. Per Merrill today:
        Dividend
        $2.67
        Dividend yield
        3.32%
        Ex-dividend date
        3/3/2022
        Maybe you need a new broker.

      2. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Not nearly 8%. See below FYI. Per Merrill today:
        Dividend
        $2.67
        Dividend yield
        3.32%
        Ex-dividend date
        3/3/2022
        Maybe you need a new broker.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Since becoming a “utility” again, as opposed to an “energy company”, they’re only worth their dividend. That 3% ain’t gonna cut it. They need to get clever in ripping their customers.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I could probably get this answer by reading the various reports, but it is easier to ask you. Is this projected 2050 cost to consumers net cost or absolute cost? By that, I mean is that the “additional” cost that would remain after subtracting the projected cost using the existing fossil fuel mix (primarily natural gas) from the cost projected for using all renewables or is it just the cost projected for using all nonrenewables compared to what we are paying now?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Whichever produces the greater fear porn. By then we’ll be up to 6 Covid boosters per year.

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    +$2000 is probably an under-estimate by a wide margin. Basically we as a blue Country and a blue wall State and to some extent blue CEO’s are adopting aspirational and very expensive goals for 2050 that is not clear yet we can actually achieve.

    Famed economist A. Gary Shilling says:
    “President Joe Biden’s goal of 100% net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 would cost $11,279 per American annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would equal 11.9% of gross domestic product, more than the 11.6% costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined. The annual cost of the plan would rise to $4.4 trillion in 2030.”

    Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/climate-change-carbon-reduction-costs-will-turn-off-investors
    Copyright © BloombergQuint

    PS- I wonder if Shilling accounted for the increase in Social Security cost to maintain benefits in 2034, but I digress.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, it is also in constant dollars, important to note in this age of non-transitory inflation. Which I have actually seen blamed on climate change, too..

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Another example of aspiration goal by Dems was for xxx-lbs of cellulosic ethanol to be blent into gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol (pie-in-the-sky) never happened, so Dems were OK with mandating corn ethanol instead. Next the gasoline use went down, making xxx-lbs impossible to blend in. To this days there continues to be fights with the Ethanol Lobby who feels Congress gave them entitlement to mandate xxx-lbs ethanol to be blended in.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    Lets say for the sake of argument that indeed it won’t work, and the GA bails (as they should) and we rely on Natural Gas. Have projections been made for how much natural gas might costs in the future ? Shouldn’t a complete analysis be done to include that also? How about the cost of another nuke? Would that be cheaper than wind/solar ?

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Photovoltaic cells are less than 150 years old. Of course, for the first 70 years they were novelties. Only in the last 50 years have they been practical in any sense.

    Since they first produced them, the engineers and scientists have put “theorectical” limits on how effectively they can convert sunlight to energy, 8%, 12%, 15%. Now, a it is at 22%.

    “But what about clouds and night?”

    There is more under heaven and Earth then is dreamt of in your philosophies.

    Here’s a hint. The Earth emits.

  10. […] scare the cat with your laughter.   They are doing it, of course, to back-load the bad news on ultimate consumer cost.  It will […]

  11. […] far the largest piece, especially if the critics are right that it will need to be supplement with additional energy storage not now being […]

Leave a Reply