SDG&E Gets New Time-of-Use Pricing in Dec 2017

California Public Utility Commission SETS NEW TIME-OF-USE PERIODS FOR SDG&E TO REFLECT CHANGING ENERGY MARKET

Figure 1.   CAISO from 8/21/2017, Eclipse Day
Showing Actual Demand in Blue
and Net Demand in Green (Net is Actual minus Renewables)

In moves to change electricity rates in California to better reflect the impacts of solar power on the grid, CPUC has allowed San Diego Gas and Electric utility time-of-use rates.    This starts no earlier than December, 2017.   As shown below, electricity will cost more during the peak period of 4-9 pm, but will cost much less during the spring off-peak demand period.   The revised rates do not result in more money to the utility in a given year.   The rates simply change how much money is collected from the various rate groups.    The intent is to reduce usage during daily peak periods, to avoid running expensive peaker power plants that increase everyone’s utility bills.   This will also give financial incentive for home and business battery-storage systems that can be charged with cheap off-peak power, then discharged to prevent purchasing expensive on-peak power from 4-9 pm.   

With most office-style businesses open until 5 p.m., and many that have a 9-80 working schedule open until 6 p.m. on most days, the final one or two hours each day will have expensive electricity.  

Part of the discussion at CPUC was the beneficial impact that voluntary electricity reduction had on the day of the eclipse, 8/21/2017.   As shown in Figure 1 above, the grid demand did decline between 10 a.m. and noon.  However, the eclipse peaked at around 10:30 a.m.   What seems likely is that millions of Californians left work or their homes from approximately 10 a.m. to noon.

The CPUC press release is shown below:

California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco ____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE Media Contact: Terrie Prosper, 415.703.1366, news@cpuc.ca.gov Docket #: A.15-04-012  

Link at:  http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M194/K665/194665543.PDF

or click here. 

The document from CPUC states:

"CPUC SETS NEW TIME-OF-USE PERIODS FOR SDG&E TO REFLECT CHANGING ENERGY MARKET

SAN FRANCISCO, August 24, 2017 - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today established new time-of-use periods for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to reflect the changing energy market, including a later on-peak period and a spring super-off-peak period. In adopting an uncontested settlement agreement that allocates SDG&E’s revenue among its different customer classes (residential, small business, commercial, industrial), the CPUC also adopted an onpeak time-of-use period of 4-9 p.m. Time-of-use pricing utilizes a rate structure that varies depending on the time of day during which energy is consumed, with higher rates charged when electricity demand or costs are higher. “Solar energy has become an important part of our clean energy grid. We saw how it changes the way we use energy last week during the eclipse. And we also saw the benefit to the grid and avoided use of gas generators when customers took action to avoid using electricity during the sun’s short break and while solar output dropped,” (note, see Figure 1) said CPUC President Michael Picker, the Commissioner assigned to the proceeding. “During hot summer months, our peak period during late afternoons has also changed significantly. The best evidence shows that the optimum time to avoid using electricity is now from 4 to 9 p.m. That’s why we move to shift SDG&E’s time of use rate structure to meet that same span of time.”

The proposal voted on is available at (see link)  http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M194/K473/194473384.PDF.

“Summary (of the linked Proposal)

This decision addresses the application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to establish marginal costs, allocate revenues, and design rates for service provided to its customers. The uncontested Revenue Allocation Settlement Agreement is approved; the contested Schools Settlement Agreement is not adopted. This decision establishes new time-of-use periods to reflect the changing energy market, including a later on-peak period and a spring super-off-peak period, while affirming the grandfathering provisions for eligible solar customers previously established by the California Public Utilities Commission and extending the Eligibility Grace Period for schools. 

The decision establishes cost recovery of distribution costs between coincident and noncoincident demand charges based on the original testimony position of the Solar Energy Industries Association and retains the current split for generation capacity costs between coincident demand and volumetric charges. The decision establishes a three-year temporary waiver of the small commercial rate load limit for current small commercial accounts where electric vehicle charging load makes up at least 50 percent of their electric load. Unless otherwise provided in this decision, the revised rates will become effective no earlier than December 1, 2017 and will allow SDG&E to collect the revenue requirement determined in Phase 1 of its 2015 General Rate Case. 

This proceeding is closed.”

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Renewable Energy Saves California from Grid Blackouts

Subtitle: Record-Setting Solar Power Reduces Natural Gas Demand

The peak summer heat is now ended in Southern California, indeed, a winter storm warning was issued for the central Sierra Nevada mountains.  One short and fairly mild heat wave occurred last weekend, with temperatures measured at Los Angeles (USC Campus)  reaching 104 degrees F for one day.  (see adjacent Figure 1).   The orange oval shows the period in which heat waves typically occur, this year only twice did temperatures break 100 degrees F.   The major conclusion is that zero blackouts occurred, because renewable power from solar PV, solar thermal, and wind turbines produced electricity at rates up to 10,000 MW throughout the summer. 

Figure 1  -  2016 year-to-date temperatures
at Los Angeles, California

As is well-known, officials have concern that grid instabilities or blackouts would occur this summer during heat waves, because the natural gas storage supply is much reduced due to the Aliso Canyon storage facility being out of operation.  

However, solar power and wind power need no natural gas, and provided power routinely through the summer.   Solar PV actually broke records for power production.    

The California grid has many efficient, combined-cycle gas turbine power plants with quick response capability to adjust their output when solar or wind output changes suddenly.    The state also imports some power from adjacent states, notably nuclear power from Arizona, hydroelectric from Nevada (Hoover Dam), and both wind and hydroelectric from Washington.    It is notable that long-distance transmission lines are required to ship the power into California.  It is also noteworthy that the adjacent states have surplus power to sell to California and do so profitably. 

Now that Fall and Winter are here or looming, the gas shortage continues due to Aliso Canyon's problems.   However, wind power increases in those seasons, which offsets the declining solar power production.    Next year will have even more solar power production as California installs even more PV power plants.   The state's renewable energy plan requires approximately 3,000 MW of renewables installed each year.  Almost all of that will be solar PV, since wind locations are essentially built out, and solar thermal has much worse economics. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.

New Solar Power Record in California 2 Sept 2016

Yet another record for grid-scale solar power production yesterday in California. 

photo courtesy of NREL
(click to enlarge)

Per records from CAISO, grid-scale solar power produced 8,442 MW at 13:00 hours, and 8,447 MW at 14:00 hours.

The breakdown for 13:00 hours was as follows:

PV .......... 7,742 MW 
Thermal ....  702

And at 14:00 hours

PV .......... 7,740 MW 

Thermal ....  707

see link to CAISO data for 2 September, 2016.


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved 

A Perfect Correlation - US Electricity Price v Consumption

Subtitle: A Bit of Gathering Into Groups Gives Good Results

It is not often that one creates a graph using actual data and discovers an almost perfect linear relationship.   It is even more rare to have a software package calculate the least-squares trend line and obtain a correlation coefficient, R-squared, of 0.99 or higher.   Yet, that is exactly what occurred for data from calendar year 2014 for US residential electricity consumption per customer, and average price per kWh.    The graph and simple statistics are shown below, then a discussion.   Note the R-squared value of 0.9997, indicating an almost perfect correlation.  

Figure 1.   Data from US Energy Information Agency, by state
Shows 39 states, excludes 10 states with lowest prices and Hawaii

This article follows another SLB article (see link) that ascribes the relatively higher price for residential electricity in California compared to the US average to mild climate and large population.  Conventional wisdom is very wrong in blaming solar power and wind power for the higher California prices.  

With the data ready at hand from US Energy Information Agency files from their website, it was a simple matter to sort the data for each state by annual average residential price in cents/kWh.   Being previously aware that low residential prices tend to correspond to high consumption, and vice-versa, inspection of the data for 2014 confirmed that relationship.  However, when the data is grouped into quintiles, a convenient grouping as there are 50 US states with ten members in each quintile, an almost perfect straight line resulted, as shown in Figure 1 above.   However, there are only four data points in Figure 1.   

The R-squared of 0.9997 resulted when only the four quintiles with highest prices are graphed, that is, the quintile with lowest prices was excluded.  Also, Hawaii is excluded as a high-priced outlier.   More on that in a moment.  

The data for each quintile is shown in table form below. 

Quint  kWh/y      Cents/kWh
1 13,528       9.67 
2 12,178     10.78 
3 11,445        11.89 
4 10,550     13.15 
5 7,311     17.58 

Next is shown in Figure 2 the graph of all five quintiles for 49 states - Hawaii is excluded as being a-typical and an outlier.   This graph has only a slightly lower correlation coefficient, R-squared of 0.9931.   

Figure 2.   Showing 49 states (excludes Hawaii)

The conclusion that can be drawn is that there is indeed a correlation, and a very good correlation, between average price for residential electricity and the quantity of electricity consumed on an annual basis by each utility customer.    California is in the fifth quintile for high price but low consumption (16.2 cents/kWh and 6,741 kWh/yr/customer).  Other states with California in the fifth quintile are almost all in the North East sector, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, Maine, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  Example states at the other extreme, in the first quintile are Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma - all hot, humid, and consuming 14,000 kWh/yr/customer on average, more than double that of California. 

In fairness, it should be noted that the high correlation coefficient only results when the quintiles are graphed.  For all 49 states individually, again excluding Hawaii as an outlier, a much lower correlation coefficient results, of R-squared 0.546.

UPDATE - 7/7/2016:  The graph shown below as Figure 3 is a repeat of Figure 2 above, with the highest (in red) and lowest (in green) states shown, as their average price's deviation from the national trend line.   California, the green circle at top left, is 2 cents below the trend.  Other states substantially below the trend include Maine, Colorado, Illinois, Utah and Montana. Those states with the highest deviation above the trend are Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas.  -- end update

Figure 3 - Showing individual states
with greatest deviation from trend
as colored circles

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Why California Electricity Costs More than US Average

Subtitle:  Mild Climate and Large Population Contribute to Prices

One of the more amusing aspects of writing a blog and commenting on other blogs is the almost unending stream of false information and wrong beliefs one encounters.   As former President Reagan said, "It's not that our . . . friends don't know anything, it's that so much of what they know just isn't so."  In this case, these people get to vote, and make their opinions known to elected officials, so it is somewhat important that what "just isn't so" gets pointed out.  Hence, this post on the disparity between US average electricity prices and the higher prices in California.   The facts show that California residential electricity use is below the national average, and the price per kWh consumed is slightly above average.  The reason for the higher price is low electricity consumption in a mild climate, by a very large number of customers, approximately 15 million customers. 

The common wisdom (that "just isn't so") is that California electricity prices are 1) higher than the rest of the country, 2) higher than they should be, and 3) higher because of stupid California policies to build renewable energy plants such as solar and wind.   Each of those three things are addressed in turn below. 

Higher Than Rest of US

Figure 1

California residential electricity is approximately 25 percent higher than average, but not the highest in the country.  Data from EIA for 2014 shows that California is 9th highest, that is, 8 states have higher residential electricity prices.  

In tabular form, the states with highest residential rates and their 2014 prices in cents/kWh were:

CA 16.25 
RI 17.17 
MA 17.39 
VT 17.47 
NH 17.53 
AK 19.14 
CT 19.75 
NY 20.07 

HI 37.04

Those are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Connecticut, New York, and Hawaii.   The same data is shown in Figure 2, below, as a bar chart. 

Figure 2

What is also true of California electricity prices is that they have been a bit higher than the US average for many years.   Even in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was common knowledge in the chemicals and petroleum industries that electricity prices in California were higher than in most other states.   

Therefore, it can be seen from the above that California residential electricity prices are a bit higher than the US average, but by no means are the highest in the US 50 states. 

Higher Than Should Be

California residential electricity prices are where they are, and where they should be, due to a number of factors.   The most important factor is the state has a large population, 38 million people with 15 million residential customers as of 2014, but has very low electricity consumption per customer.  The low consumption per customer is due to the mild climate with low humidity.  Or, as the EIA states, "In most of the more densely populated areas of the state, the climate is dry and relatively mild. More than two-fifths of state households report that they do not have or do not use air conditioning, and almost one-seventh do not have or do not use space heating. Residential energy use per person in California is lower than in every other state except Hawaii."    Things have changed, but only slightly, since EIA wrote that, as Maine has barely edged out California for second place in residential electricity use per customer.  

The second important factor, after the mild, dry climate, is the large infrastructure for transmission and distribution that must be built over mountainous areas within the state.  In contrast to the nearest state in size and population, Texas, California has many more mountainous areas where transmission and distribution costs are much greater.  

Combined, a low per-customer electricity use and large, costly network or grid requires that each kWh sold command a higher price to pay for the grid's assets.  The utilities are allowed a 10 percent return on capital employed, so smaller volume of electricity sold must command a higher price.  

Finally, the 16 cents/kWh and 562 kWh/month, on average, yields a lower electric bill for the average customer compared to the US average.   The average bill for a California customer is only $91 per month, compared to the average for the US at $114 per month. 

The data for all states and DC are shown below, in kWh/month:  (Note, US average is 911.3 kWh/month)

Figure 3

  HI 506.4 
 ME 549.4 
 CA 561.8 <====
 VT 568.5 
 RI   583.0     
 NY 591.0 
 AK 605.1 
 MA 614.9 
 NH 619.4 
 NM 633.4 
 MI 653.6 
 NJ   669.7 
 CO 687.4 
 WI   694.4 
 DC 721.5 
 CT 729.7 
 IL    745.2 
 UT 746.7 
 MN 809.6 
 MT 853.8 
 PA    853.9 
 WY 863.2 
 IA   891.4 
 NV 894.2 
 OH 901.3 
 US 911.3 
 KS 928.0 
 OR 929.5 
 DE 949.8 
 ID    982.1 
 WA 1,005.5 
 IN 1,008.6 
 AZ 1,012.7 
 NE 1,022.4 
 MD 1,024.9 
 SD   1,045.6 
 FL   1,092.3 
 MO 1,094.8 
 NC 1,135.7 
 OK 1,137.7 
 AR 1,142.6 
 GA 1,151.5 
 WV 1,158.0 
 TX 1,158.1 
 VA 1,171.5 
 KY 1,177.3 
 SC 1,186.6 
 ND 1,239.6 
 MS 1,247.9 
 AL   1,264.7 
 TN 1,285.8 
 LA 1,291.4 

Higher Due to Renewable Energy Policies

This third "just isn't so" reason is easy to debunk after showing in point 2, above, that California residential electricity prices are not higher than they should be, nor higher than the US average.  As shown above, both the average monthly bill, and the consumption in kWh/month are less than the US average.  In fact, the average consumption per customer is third lowest out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, DC. 

Yet, the impact of renewable energy policies in California may have some small impact on electricity prices.  Solar power, and wind power are addressed separately. 

Solar Power

Solar power, as shown earlier on SLB, had almost zero impact in California as little as 5 years ago.  Only in the past 5 years, since 2011, has solar power been added at the grid scale.  At present, there is almost 8,000 MW of solar power installed, almost all of which is PV.  The remainder is solar thermal.   The contribution of solar power is small, at approximately 6 to 7 percent of annual power sales.  It is clear, therefore, that the impact of solar power could not be a factor before 2011, yet California prices (see Figure 1) were 25 to 30 percent higher than the national average since 1990. 

Wind Power

The contribution of wind power in California has increased from 1.5 percent in 2001 to approximately 6 percent in 2014 of all electricity generated in-state, per the California Energy Commission data.   The fact is that wind resources in the state are few in number and below average in output, as measured by percent of installed capacity.  California wind turbines produce approximately 22 to 26 percent of installed capacity, compared to the Great Plains states of 45 to 42 percent of installed capacity.  Essentially, the wind blows stronger and more steady in the Great Plains states.    

It can be seen, then, that wind power contributes only a small fraction of total electricity in the state, and the electricity prices are higher due to low average consumption and a large asset base.  There can be no validity to the argument that policies on wind energy cause California electricity prices to be higher than the US average. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

California Solar Provides 5 Percent of Electricity

Subtitle:  Solar is Growing in Vacant Desert Land

A few facts on grid-scale solar energy in California, and other states.  This is from The US Energy Information Agency, March 2015.  see link  Title: "California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar."

California and other states Solar energy 

Excerpt:  "California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly. California's utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California's utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.

"Several large plants were phased into operation in California during 2014, including two 550 MW solar photovoltaic plants, Topaz and Desert Sunlight (Phases 1 and 2), as well as the 377 MW Ivanpah (Phases 1, 2, and 3) and the 250 MW Genesis solar thermal plants. In total, nearly 1,900 MW of new utility-scale solar capacity was added, bringing the state's utility-scale capacity for all solar technologies to 5,400 MW by the end of 2014."

And to those who argue that California also has the highest electricity prices in the US, that is simply incorrect.  California residential electricity price is approximately 17 cents per kWh in early 2016, with 8 other states having a higher price.   California's high prices are due in part to the large population (39 million people) and low electricity consumption per capita.  The utilities must bill more per kWh to pay for the infrastructure.   Peak demand is approximately 45,000 MW, while average demand is only 33,000 MW.  

The wind resources in California are fairly good, but are limited to few locations.  These are almost fully developed at this point.  However, the vacant desert land is enormous in extent, and has yet to have most of the free sunshine harvested and converted to inexhaustible electricity. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Implications of Closing Aliso Canyon Gas Storage in California

Subtitle:  Gas Storage Critical to Averting Electricity Shortages

A few days ago (Feb 1st), three California regulatory agencies sent a joint letter to Governor Brown, stating their concern over electricity availability in Southern California this summer, and for continued natural gas supplies for the remainder of the winter.   This concern is certainly valid if the gas injections, storage, and withdrawals at Aliso Canyon are not allowed to resume.   The letter is shown below in its entirety.  The three agencies are California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and California Independent System Operator, CEC, CPUC, and CAISO, respectively.  CAISO operates the major electricity grid in California.  

For context, there are calls from many sides to shut down the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility because one well is leaking gas into the air.  The gas leak stinks, to put it bluntly, because the gas is already odorized with the sulfur compound that smells like rotten eggs.  Thousands of local residents have been temporarily relocated at gas company expense to escape the stink and related health issues.   There are public meetings of various types to discuss the many aspects of the leak, when it will stop, and what different parties can or should do.  see link to an earlier SLB article on the gas leak. 

From the big picture perspective, California uses natural gas for a substantial part of its basic energy needs.  Gas is used for power generation and for home and commercial space heating.  Having a generally mild climate with some hot summer weather, the demand for gas peaks in the summer, not winter.   The local gas production, plus gas imported via pipelines are not sufficient to meet the peak demand.   Therefore, quantities of natural gas are stored during slack demand, and withdrawn from storage in peak demand.  This is a common practice across the US.   One of the favored storage means is abandoned oil or gas wells.  Aliso Canyon has the abandoned oil wells as the storage means.

The three agencies are responsible for ensuring that California has safe, reliable, and cost-effective utilities - both natural gas and electricity.  An unplanned shortage sometimes occurs, as is mentioned in their letter regarding the sudden shut down of the nuclear power plant in 2012 that is located at San Onofre, and known as SONGS for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.   Today, the issue is natural gas and the electricity that gas produces.  

A few years ago, an artificial shortage of natural gas was created in the El Paso Natural Gas Company fiasco, and California experienced electrical shortages, rolling blackouts, and outrageously high electricity prices.   Part of that fiasco was due to the untimely shutdown of a natural gas pipeline that brings natural gas to California from Texas. ( see link to a copy of the settlement agreement between El Paso Corp and various parties.  This describes some, but not all, of the activities that created the electricity shortage.)

In short, a looming electricity shortage in California is a big issue.  There is always suspicion that someone is manipulating the market to obtain windfall profits.   The El Paso case from above alleged the gas pipeline was shut down, or partially shut down so that gas shipments did not occur.  Ostensibly, the shut down was for needed repairs.  The FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission got involved, and sternly questioned the timing of the repairs.  

The analogous situation today might be, and I emphasize this is only a possibility, that a gas shortage occurs, electrical power shortages result in the summer, and the suspicious parties bring lawsuits.  For one thing, a lawsuit can bring facts to light via discovery.  

However, if the three state agencies CEC, CPUC, and CAISO can resolve the issue before any critical shortages occur, there would be no need for the kind of litigation that the El Paso fiasco created.  

The electricity demand in California has not increased as the climate change alarmists warned, with ever-increasing hot summers due to man-made global warming.   Indeed, the peak demand for electricity (see table below) has been remarkably constant between 45,000 MW and 47,000 MW for the past 8 years.  The claim of "hottest year ever" must be the result of other places getting warmer; California certainly is not.  These peak demands are flat, even though the population is growing as always (25 percent over the past 8 years).  

YR    MW     Date   Time
2008 46,897 June 20 16:21
2009 46,042 September 3 16:17
2010 47,350 August 25 16:20
2011 45,545 September 7 16:30
2012 46,846 August 13 15:53
2013 45,097 June 28 16:54
2014 45,089 September 15 16:53
2015 46,519 September 10 15:38

UPDATE 1:  The options the agencies may be considering include the following, and possibly others: 
1) repair and restore Aliso Canyon storage facility
2) increase storage capacity at other locations
3) import more natural gas when needed
4) produce more natural gas within state as needed
5) reduce the demand for natural gas during peak periods, i.e. summer hot days
6) find a replacement or substitute for natural gas
7) reduce the demand for electricity during peak periods

Each of the above options has ramifications.  
1) Repair and restoration of the Aliso Canyon storage facility is viable only if the leaking well is not a common occurrence.  However, if the oil formation underground has deteriorated, and other wells are likely to also leak, then repairs may be futile.  

2) Increasing the storage capacity at other locations may be possible given enough time, but must be studied carefully.  At least one other storage location is not far away at Playa del Rey near Santa Monica.  

3) Import more natural gas when needed may not be possible within the time available, that is, the hot summer when demand peaks in August and September.   Importing natural gas requires gas pipelines from other states, or an LNG import terminal.  Both are expensive, time-consuming, and have long environmental evaluations.  

4) Produce more natural gas within state as needed also requires more time.  It may be possible to obtain emergency drilling permits and drill now to bring in wells in the next few months.   Much is needed to accomplish this, including cleaning the raw natural gas to remove impurities.  

5) Reducing the demand for natural gas during peak periods, i.e. summer hot days, where the primary focus is gas-fired power plants.  There are not many ways to accomplish this, as the hydroelectric capability is low due to an extended drought, and solar power plants with adequate storage are not yet built in great number.   Wind energy without adequate storage is not sufficiently reliable. 

6) Finding  a replacement or substitute for natural gas has potential, but not in the short time-frame required.  Producing renewable forms of methane also is not a large-volume activity, such as methane from farm waste, and landfills.  One long-term solution is the conversion of human waste to synthetic methane, the patented process of Dr. Chan Park of University of California at Riverside.  Dr. Park's process produces pipeline-quality methane from the sludge from waste treatment plants, but it is not yet in commercial production.  see link to SLB coverage of this fascinating chemical engineering research. 

7) Reducing the demand for electricity during peak periods is last on the list, and will likely be the decision if all of the above fail.   California already has a program in place to encourage consumers to reduce electrical load (Flex Alerts), and gives financial incentives to many consumers to shut off their power during high-demand periods.   Demand can also be reduced via rolling blackouts, if needed.  

--end update 1. --- 



--- (Agencies joint letter to Governor Brown) ------

February 1, 2016

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
State Capitol Building, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Brown:

Shaping a Renewed Future

The California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Independent System Operator are writing regarding the Emergency Proclamation you issued on January 6,2016, relating to the gas leak from the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility. The Proclamation called on us to work together and "take all actions necessary to ensure the continued reliability of natural gas and electric supplies during the moratorium on gas injections into Aliso Canyon."

The immediate issue has been gas system reliability for core customers, which we are working to ensure reliable gas for the rest of winter given the field's current 15 billion cubic feet of working gas. Our shared concern is electric system reliability for this summer, and both gas and electric system reliability for next winter and beyond in the event injections cannot resume.

The nexus between the gas and power systems in the Los Angeles Basin is a complex
problem to assess given the constraints on gas deliveries, rapid changes in electricity demand that occur every day, and electric transmission constraints that limit electricity imports into the area. We have created a team to perform the studies that includes our experts and those of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and SoCalGas Company. There is good reason to be concerned that reliability of supply may be critical for electric generators in the LA Basin, especially those serving LADWP. We expect to complete the work related to summer 2016 by April when we will hold a public, joint agency workshop in Los Angeles to describe the reliability risks and present a reliability action plan for mitigating them. Of course, we will take action immediately as effective mitigation is identified. We look forward to working with the City of Los Angeles, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and other public agencies affected by this issue. 

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
February 1, 2018
Page 2 of 3

This matter is critical to public health and safety, and has our full attention. We are bringing
the same urgency and attention to this as we did when faced with the unexpected closure of
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Our organizations worked together effectively
then, and we will again.

Thank you for entrusting us with this responsibility.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT B. WEISENMILLER                     MICHAEL PICKER
Chair                                                            President
California Energy Commission                    California Public Utilities Commission 


STEPHEN BERBERICH
President and Chief Executive Officer
California Independent System Operator 

cc: Transmitted via email
Senator Pro Tempore, Kevin de Leon, 24th Senate District
Speaker of the Assembly, Toni G. Atkins, 78th Assembly District
Speaker-Elect of the Assembly, Anthony Rendon, 83rd Assembly District
Senator Fran Pavley, 27th Senate District
Assembly Member Wilk, 38th Assembly District
Senator Ben Hueso, Chair of Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, 40th
Senate District
Mike Gatto, Assemblymember and Chair of Utilities and Commerce Committee, 43rd
Assembly District
Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor
Hilda L. Solis, First District Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Mark Ridley-Thomas, Second District Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Sheila Kuehl, Third District Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Don Knabe, Fourth District Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Michael D. Antonovich, Fifth District Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Gilbert Cedillo, District 1 of Los Angeles City Council
Paul Krekorian, District 2 of Los Angeles City Council
Bob Blumenfield, District 3 of Los Angeles City Council 

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
February 1,2016
Page 3 of 3

David E. Ryu, District 4 of Los Angeles City Council
Paul Koretz, District 5 of Los Angeles City Council
Nury Martinez, District 6 of Los Angeles City Council
Felipe Fuentes, District 7 of Los Angeles City Council
Marqueece Harris-Dawson, District 8 of Los Angeles City Council
Curren D. Price, Jr., District 9 of Los Angeles City Council
Herb J. Wesson, Jr., District 10 of Los Angeles City Council
Mike Bonin, District 11 of Los Angeles City Council
Mitchel Englander, District 12 of Los Angeles City Council
Mitch O'Farrell, District 13 of Los Angeles City Council
Jose Huizar, District 14 of Los Angeles City Council
Joe Buscaino, District 15 of Los Angeles City Council
Mary Nichols, Chairman, California Air Resources Board
Marcie L. Edwards, General Manager of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Dennis Arreola, Chief Executive Officer, Southern California Gas Company
Pedro Pizzaro, President, Southern California Edison
Barry Wallerstein, Ph.D, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

----(end letter ) ----


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved