The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Why Nevada's Governor Must Sign Renewable Energy Bill
By Dylan Sullivan
Nevada's renewable portfolio standard requires electricity providers like NV Energy to buy a minimum amount of electricity from renewable sources like solar, geothermal and wind. Assembly Bill 206, sponsored by Assemblyman Chris Brooks, would increase the renewable standard so that it requires electricity providers to get 40 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
The bill would drive capital investment in Nevada, create jobs, and reduce the state's over-dependence on a natural gas, a fossil fuel with a lot of price risk. It is moderate. It reflects a lot of changes—compliance flexibility requested by NV Energy, energy storage provisions requested by gaming, reducing the 2030 requirement from 50 percent to 40 percent, removal of the original 80 percent by 2040 renewable energy goal.
Having passed the Assembly and Senate—the former with three Republicans, the latter on a party-line vote—it will arrive on the governor's desk later this week.
Renewable energy is now cheap; solar should be at heart of Nevada's electricity grid
Utility-scale solar is now the cheapest way to serve Nevada's energy needs. Between 2008 and 2016, the cost of electricity from new solar and wind farms fell by 83 percent and 71 percent, respectively. Nevadans will soon receive electricity from the Techren solar project in Boulder City for the low, low price of 3.4 cents per-kilowatt hour. Customers of Tucson Electric Power will soon benefit from a solar project that produces electricity for three cents per-kilowatt hour.
At these prices, new solar is comparable in cost to ongoing costs to fuel and operate Nevada's natural gas-fired power plants, and much lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas plant. Prices for solar are especially low right now because of the Investment Tax Credit, which is phasing out and is only available for projects that start construction before December 31, 2021.
The smartest people in the utility sector now refer to "base-cost" renewables: solar and wind power are so cheap that they should be placed at the heart of the electricity grid, the same way "baseload" power plants once were.
Nevada's current plan: natural gas, forever
Without an increase to the renewable portfolio standard, Nevada will never get to this clean, abundant, cheap renewable energy future. The state currently relies on natural gas for 73 percent of its electricity production, and sent $700 million out-of-state to buy natural gas for its power plants in 2015. Under current plans, NV Energy will still be getting 72 percent of its electricity from natural gas in 2025 and 64 percent in 2030.
Contrast this with NV Energy's utility siblings. NV Energy is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which also owns Pacificorp and MidAmerican. In Oregon, Pacificorp championed a bill that will require it to meet 50 percent renewable energy by 2040. In Iowa, MidAmerican touts its forthcoming ability to serve 89 percent of customer demand with renewable energy.
In our modelling of the impact of a 50 percent by 2030 portfolio standard—more ambitious than the current proposal—we found that a renewables- and efficiency-focused grid would cause de minimis changes in bills if natural gas prices remain flat, and lower 2030 electricity bills by three percent if natural gas prices increase.
Raising the portfolio standard would increase capital investment in the state, and replace some natural gas electricity with cheap renewables
Increasing the portfolio standard will also increase capital investment in Nevada. Based on our modelling, I estimate an amended 40 percent standard will lead to capital investment of around $1.7 to $1.8 billion between now and 2030. This investment in Nevada's solar, geothermal and battery storage resources will create jobs, adding to Nevada's clean energy sector.
With Nevada's sunshine, and the low, low cost of solar electricity these days, it makes no sense for the state to serve daytime electricity needs primarily with natural gas. Increasing the portfolio standard would reduce this reliance, cutting emissions and lowering risks for utility customers.
NV Energy has consistently been "neutral" on Assembly Bill 206, and the Nevada Resorts Association has consistently been opposed.
"Nevada already gets lots of free solar from California"
AB 206 opponents vastly overstate the amount of very-low-cost solar Nevada can get from California: it's not nearly enough to serve a major portion of Nevada demand or take the place of a renewable portfolio standard. Based on CAISO data, I estimate that in calendar year 2016, Nevada received very-low-cost electricity equivalent to the output of a 37 MW solar array, just seven percent of NV Energy's currently installed utility-scale solar capacity. Nevada's share of very-low-cost electricity from California will get smaller as more power companies connect to the market where NV Energy can get this very-low-cost electricity.
The only way Nevada would not continue to take advantage of the small amount of very-low-cost-electricity it gets from California is if Nevada itself develops enough solar to exceed its electricity demands. But that is not close to happening under AB 206. Even on one of Nevada's lowest-load days, Jan. 1, the output of the total utility-scale solar on the grid would be a couple thousand megawatts lower than demand. Even on a day like May 9, when load is still relatively low (people are not yet using a lot of air conditioning at that time of the year), and there is a lot of sunlight, Nevada would not be close to saturating its grid with solar.
"Grid support requirements"
The Resorts Association worries that increasing the portfolio standard would cause "grid support requirements" to increase. It would not. One silver lining of Nevada's reliance on natural gas—the other is that it is better than relying on coal—is that natural gas plants are good at quickly ramping-up or -down to meet load; they can quickly ramp down when the sun rises and up again when the sun sets. Grid support requirements only become a concern when a grid is saturated with variable resources. Even with the amount of solar developed under AB 206, Nevada will be far from this point.
"More solar is not needed"
The Resorts Association also worries that increasing the portfolio standard will result in Nevada building power plants it does not need. They take a limited view of need. NV Energy needs to replace the coal-fired North Valmy Generating Station. Nevada is very exposed to natural gas rises, and it has an opportunity to buy very cheap insurance against that possibility. Nevada does need to put more of its people to work, reduce emissions and restore its clean energy leadership.
It seems to only take those two words to end conversations about raising the portfolio standard this legislative session. It should not.
First: voters voted for more clean energy when they approved question three. Given everything that was happening in the state in 2016—net metering and the Yes on 3 campaign, which was sold to voters with "sunshine and windmills," often pictured together—voters could have reasonably expected their vote would be used to increase clean energy, not keep things the same.
Second: renewable portfolio standards and retail choice are compatible. In fact, we know exactly the framework we will need: a renewable portfolio standard that applies equally to all providers of electric service. That is the policy that all states with retail choice use. The text of the Energy Choice Initiative presupposes this policy: "Nothing herein shall be construed to invalidate Nevada's public policies on renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental protection or limit the Legislature's ability to impose such policies on participants in a competitive electricity market." The Energy Choice campaign agreed to a "statement of principles" that included a strong, 80 percent by 2040 renewable energy goal.
So from this, and the strong track record of renewable portfolio standards, it should be a given that Nevada will continue to have a standard in the future, and that it will apply to all competitive suppliers.
Why should energy choice prevent us from increasing the portfolio standard now?
With the amended ramp-rate and NV Energy's giant bank of old credits, the bill would only require 380 megawatts of new solar development between now and the implementation of Energy Choice in 2023. Because of the Investment Tax Credit, falling prices and Nevada's strong resources, the contracts for this solar will likely be made at prices in the three cents per-kilowatt hour range. Rather than being a burden, they will be the lowest-cost resources in Nevada's electricity portfolio. If and when Energy Choice is implemented, the cost of them can be straightforwardly rolled into the already-necessary transition charge. They will continue to provide customers with cheap electricity, and renewable energy credits for providers, long after Energy Choice is implemented.
Going forward, Nevada absolutely needs policy to ensure competitive suppliers get a minimum amount of electricity from renewable sources. Every other state with retail competition does this. So what is the problem with setting this amount now?
The arguments against Assembly Bill 206 dissolve under scrutiny.
The bill drives capital investment, creates jobs and reduces the state's over-dependence on a fossil fuel with a lot of price risk. It is moderate and reflects a lot of changes.
Governor Sandoval: AB 206 deserves your signature. Please sign it.
Dylan Sullivan is a senior scientist for Natural Resources Defense Council's energy program.
How much money can a solar roof save you? Find local deals on solar in your area, eliminate your power bill and join the solar revolution. UnderstandSolar is a great free service to link you to top-rated solar installers in your region that will provide you personalized solar estimates for free. Learn more here.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.
By Karin Kirk
Greenland had quite the summer. It rose from peaceful obscurity to global headliner as ice melted so swiftly and massively that many were left grasping for adjectives. Then, Greenland's profile was further boosted, albeit not to its delight, when President Trump expressed interest in buying it, only to be summarily dismissed by the Danish prime minister.
During that time I happened to be in East Greenland, both as an observer of the stark effects of climate change and as a witness to local dialogue about presidential real estate aspirations, polar bear migrations and Greenland's sudden emergence as a trending topic.
Heavy metals that may damage a developing brain are present in 95 percent of baby foods on the market. Cirou Frederic / PhotoAlto Agency RF Collections / Getty Images
Heavy metals that may damage a developing brain are present in 95 percent of baby foods on the market, according to new research from the advocacy organization Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF), which bills itself as an alliance of scientists, nonprofit organizations and donors trying to reduce exposures to neurotoxic chemicals during the first three years of development.
By Kerstin Palme
Creepy-crawlies are among the oldest life forms on this planet. Before dinosaurs ever walked the earth, insects were certainly already there. Some estimates date their origins to 400 million years ago. They're also extremely successful. Of the 7 to 8 million species documented on Earth, around three quarters are likely bugs.
But several insect species could disappear for good in the next few decades and that would have serious consequences for humans.
Volvo introduced its first-ever all-electric vehicle this week, kicking off an ambitious plan to slash emissions and phase out solely gas-powered vehicles starting this year.
The report, released Wednesday, found that almost every European who lives in a city is exposed to unhealthy air, Reuters reported.