Sustainable Energy at PG&E

Hal LaFlash Director Emerging Clean Technologies
September 23, 2010

Electric Generation Portfolio Mix - Energy
Clean Today
Bioenergy 4% Geothermal 4% Wind 3%

Even Cleaner Tomorrow
Small Hydro <1%

Other 1% Coal 1%

Unspecified
(market purchases)

Eligible Renewables

Small Hydro 3% Solar <1%

Geothermal 18%

15% Large Hydro 13%

Solar Thermal 26%

Wind 29% Natural Gas 36%

Nuclear 20%

Solar PV 20%

7%
Bioenergy

2009 Actual Deliveries

8,550 MW of New Renewables
(mix by % energy as of 8/31/10)
1

Renewable Portfolio Standards
www.dsireusa.org / August 2010
WA: 15% x 2020* MT: 15% x 2015 OR: 25% x 2025 (large utilities)*
5% - 10% x 2025 (smaller utilities)

MN: 25% x 2025
(Xcel: 30% x 2020)

VT: (1) RE meets any increase in retail sales x 2012; (2) 20% RE & CHP x 2017

ME: 30% x 2000
New RE: 10% x 2017

NH: 23.8% x 2025 MA: 22.1% x 2020
New RE: 15% x 2020 (+1% annually thereafter)

ND: 10% x 2015

MI: 10% + 1,100 MW
x 2015*

NV: 25% x 2025*

SD: 10% x 2015 WI: Varies by utility; 10% x 2015 statewide

NY: 29% x 2015

RI: 16% x 2020 CT: 23% x 2020 PA: ~18% x 2021† NJ: 22.5% x 2021 MD: 20% x 2022 DE: 25% x 2026*
DC

IA: 105 MW
10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*

CO: 30% by 2020

OH: 25% x 2025†
WV: 25% x 2025*† VA: 15% x 2025*

(IOUs)

CA: 33% x 2020

UT: 20% by 2025*

KS: 20% x 2020
OK: 15% x 2015

IL: 25% x 2025

AZ: 15% x 2025
10% x 2020 (co-ops)

MO: 15% x 2021 NC: 12.5% x 2021
(IOUs) 10% x 2018 (co-ops & munis)

DC: 20% x 2020

NM: 20% x 2020 (IOUs)

TX: 5,880 MW x 2015 HI: 40% x 2030

State renewable portfolio standard State renewable portfolio goal Solar water heating eligible

Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement

* †

Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables Includes non-renewable alternative resources

29 states +
DC have an RPS
(7 states have goals) (7 states have goals)

Renewable Energy Technologies
Traditional

Biomass

Small Hydro

Geothermal

Wind

Emerging

Concentrating Solar Thermal

Tracking Photovoltaic

Concentrating Photovoltaic

BioGas
3

PG&E’s Sustainable Energy Journey
Adopted environmental policy Construction of last geothermal power plant First hydro plant Construction of first geothermal power plant
1990’s

Published first annual environmental report Published first Corporate Responsibility Report
2000 2001 2002

Supported AB 32
Adopted climate change policy Joined Ceres
2003 2004 2005 2006

Dow Jones Sustainability Index

Newsweek #1 greenest utility ranking Top 10 Carbon Disclosure Project

1890’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s

2007

2008

2009

2010

Wind and solar research

Began Solar Schools Program Certify entitywide CO2 emissions Use “Carbon Adder” in LongTerm Plan Join Carbon Disclosure Project

McKinsey study sponsor U.S. Senate climate change testimony (2x) Clinton Initiative 2,000 MW Solar Commitment

Opposed Prop. 23 Corporate Resp. and Sustain. Report

Joined Clean Energy Group

Charter Member of California Climate Action Registry

4

Supporting the Clean Energy Economy
Unique role in finding technology solutions to global warming while meeting our customers’ goals of reduced carbon footprints Helping develop a sustainable energy future by supporting a new clean energy industry 3,000+ MW of Power Purchase Agreements with 13 Clean Tech Start-ups

5

Participation in RPS Solicitations is Accelerating
• Solar energy saw a dramatic increase in participation from developers in the 2007-2009 RPS solicitations • Wind continues to be large contributor to RPS offers

Number of Bids by Renewable Source in IOU Solicitations

Source: California Public Utilities Commission, 1st Quarter 2010

6

Future 246-MW Manzana Wind Farm
Manzana site in Tehachapi Wind Resource Area

Current Tehachapi Wind Resource Area Developments

7

Renewable Energy Percentages

Source: California Public Utilities Commission, 2nd Quarter 2010

8

Levelized Cost of Generation by Technology

9

Distributed vs. Utility Scale Solar; PV vs Solar Thermal
Distributed PV Utility Scale PV Utility Scale Solar Thermal

Pros: • Speed to market • Not transmission dependent • Not dependent on water Cons: • Higher deployment costs • Slower scale penetration

Pros: • Economies of scale • Modular • Minimal water

Pros: • Economies of scale • Efficiencies • Compatible with emerging storage technologies Cons: • Transmission dependent • Land & water requirements • Not for all locations

Cons: • Land requirements • Not for all locations

10

PG&E’s New “Hybrid” PV Program
• 5-Year, 500-MW Program starting in late 2010/early 2011 • 1 to 20 MW photovoltaic generation installations in northern and central California – Up to 50 MW per year utility-owned generation – Up to 50 MW per year of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with renewable resource developers • Projects developed and owned by PG&E would be built on land near its substations to minimize the cost and delays of interconnecting to the power grid • The terms of the PPAs will be pre-approved by the CPUC, avoiding the need for negotiations and legal fees. Prices would be based on a competitive solicitation. • Projects will have 18 months to go into operation.
11

PV Plants Near Substations

12

Distributed Solar Generation Growing Rapidly
More than 43,000 PG&E customers have solar generation onsite.

~40% of US solar PV interconnections are in PG&E’s service territory

13

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.