{"id":9743,"date":"2015-03-24T13:47:01","date_gmt":"2015-03-24T18:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=9743"},"modified":"2015-04-10T09:10:24","modified_gmt":"2015-04-10T14:10:24","slug":"hitting-those-clean-energy-notes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2015\/03\/24\/hitting-those-clean-energy-notes\/","title":{"rendered":"Hitting Those Clean Energy Notes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"2752029321_9e6975510a_z<\/a>
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS) Photo source: Flickr\/Jason Hickey<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Editor’s note: This post was updated April 9, 2015.<\/em><\/p>\n

When the door to one power plant closes, a window to more clean energy solutions opens.<\/p>\n

It may seem logical that once a power plant closes, another one needs to be built to replace it \u2013 after all, we need to make up for its potential energy generation with more natural gas or nuclear-powered energy, right? San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is certainly trying to convince Californians this is true. Trouble is, EDF and other environmental groups, along with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)<\/a>, aren\u2019t buying it. And you shouldn\u2019t either.<\/p>\n

This story begins in 2013, when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS)<\/a> permanently closed, shutting down a nuclear power plant with a capacity of 2,200 megawatts (MW) and sparking a debate about how to replace this lost power source. When first determining how to proceed in the wake of the SONGS closure, the CPUC decided<\/a> SDG&E could buy between 500 to 800 megawatts (MW) of new energy resources by 2022. Further, at least 200 MW of this power had to \u2013 and all of it could \u2013 be met with preferred resources like energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy storage, and demand response<\/a> (an energy conservation tool that pays people to save energy when the electric grid is stressed).<\/p>\n

SDG&E, one of the joint owners of SONGS, is seeking permission to buy a brand-new 600 MW natural gas plant in Carlsbad, California from NRG Corporation. SDG&E\u2019s argument is that this resource is necessary to fill the gap left by SONGS and provide greater reliability in the face of intermittent renewable energy resources. EDF and like-minded organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), on the other hand, are rightfully pushing back on this proposal as likely unnecessary and unquestionably premature. For example, rather than paying above-market prices to NRG for polluting power plants, why not work with NRG to help them meet their commitment<\/a> to invest more than $102 million in electric vehicle infrastructure that could help address reliability concerns?<\/p>\n

Rightfully, in their recent proposed decision over SONGS replacement, the CPUC sent a clear signal that SDG&E must abide by the state\u2019s Loading Order<\/a>, first established in 2003 by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and adopted by both the CEC and the CPUC. The Loading Order was developed for just this type of situation: as regulatory guidance to help clean energy solutions be part of the mix when considering how to replace lost power supply. In the CPUC\u2019s own words, when proposing to reject the Carlsbad plant: \u201cwe reaffirm our commitment to the Loading Order, and reiterate that it is incumbent on SDG&E to meet its procurement authority to the extent feasible with preferred resources and energy storage.\u201d Though the CPUC left the door open for SDG&E to bring this proposal again if the utility cannot buy the minimum required amount of preferred resources, we believe SDG&E, with reasonable effort, should be capable of meeting the CPUC\u2019s directive.<\/p>\n

EDF\u2019s stance, then and now, amounts to this: while the demand for power doesn\u2019t go away, a plethora of clean, efficient resources exist that can help us manage energy demand more effectively without turning to fossil fuels. For example:<\/p>\n