Columns

To Avoid Price Shocks, We Must Meet Energy Needs

By: Susan Glickman | Posted: August 22, 2012 3:55 AM
Susan Glickman

Susan Glickman

The energy challenges of the 21st century demand new ways of doing things -- namely, moving from the old paradigm of “selling energy” to one where we “meet energy needs” with less costly and less risky resource choices. This is how to diversify Florida’s energy mix.  

Our current regulatory framework has led to 30-to-50 percent rate increases over the past decade, with Florida’s two largest investor-owned utilities back at the Florida Public Service Commission asking for more. We have made no meaningful inroads on incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy as resources.

Instead, we have shifted all the financial risk from utility shareholders to consumers for the development of nuclear reactors that seem unlikely to be built given their ever-burgeoning price tag of upward of $25 billion. The end result is that Floridians export $50 billion per year out of state for fuel. 

Clearly, these trends are not sustainable for a state that wishes to insulate its citizens from price shocks and promote economic development. 

Current utility regulation puts the incentive on building new power plants since utilities earn a guaranteed rate of return for their shareholders on such assets. Conversely, there is no financial incentive for helping customers save money on their bills through energy efficiency programs since these programs defer the need for power plants – the very assets that maximize power-company shareholder value. 

As one might expect, this perverse disincentive has led to paltry energy savings for customers. Not one of Florida’s investor-owned utilities broke the top-100 ranking of leading utilities nationally on energy efficiency savings – based on a list compiled for the Florida Public Service Commission. That’s a shame since energy efficiency is a utility’s lowest cost resource and can meet demand at a fraction of the cost of building new power plants.

Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy – which has just merged with Progress Energy -- rightly extolled the virtues of energy efficiency in his recent appearance before the Florida Public Service Commission calling efficiency the “fifth fuel.” The recent merger provides a unique opportunity for Duke Energy to bring its successful track record in the Carolinas to Florida. 

Another fact is that the capital costs of building conventional and nuclear power plants are spiking upward while costs for renewable energy technologies, such as solar PV, are dropping rapidly. The projected capital cost of nuclear reactors has tripled in the last 10 years due, in part, to higher commodity prices for steel, copper and concrete on world markets.

In contrast, the cost of solar PV has dropped from $27 per peak watt in 1982 to about $2 today. Dr. James Fenton of the Florida Solar Energy Center presented at The Florida Energy Summit that electric cars fueled by solar electric panels manufactured in Florida can “fuel” cars for the equivalent of $1.08 a gallon and he predicts that solar will be at $1 a watt by 2015 with grid parity by 2013.

And while solar power does not provide around-the-clock power, its generation profile and competitive price make it a prime emission-free resource for meeting summer peak demand in most parts of Florida. Likewise, biomass resources – while providing a new market for Florida farmers -- meet baseload needs at all times of the day. In addition, there are significant economic development opportunities with efficiency and renewable energy creating more jobs than traditional fuels. 

Yet, these valuable resources provide less than 2 percent of the state’s electricity generation. The state must ensure that renewable resources comprise a bigger piece of the energy mix. That’s the diversity we need.

To get there, Florida must have an open and transparent integrated resource planning (IRP) process that places energy efficiency and renewable energy on a level playing field with conventional resources. Now we have three disjointed components: the 10-Year Site Plan filing requirement; the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) process; and the determination of need for new power plants. 

An IRP process that permits stakeholder involvement will help ensure that the state’s power companies choose the lowest cost and lowest risk energy mix for Florida customers – the side benefits keep energy dollars here at home and creating jobs.


Susan Glickman represents the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in the Florida Legislature and directs the Florida Clean Technology Business Council. She is a Florida native and a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin.


Comments (7)

mickey
10:40AM AUG 23RD 2012
Mrs Glickman, I have had time to research this matter. You are a liar. The language you are talking about that was in the bill you supported, charged the legislature with executing a RPS policy in the Florida. It was the only thing remaining that could make the legislators even consider renewable energy goals. It was statutory langauge to make them at least look at renewable energy goals. But still, you supported its repeal. No matter how you slice it, that is a fact. Nothing that you can say will erase that.
Fannie
10:37AM NOV 19TH 2012
One smart line for today: If you want the rainbow, then you must have the rain.
Bavaro Business Online Advertising
John Wilson
7:41AM AUG 27TH 2012
You don't know what you're talking about, and you're behaving rudely. To boot, you're naive: in what Constitution does a bill passed by a legislature "make" the legislators execute a policy? Whatever your agenda is, Ms. Glickman is not the person that stands between you and success.
mickey
3:08PM AUG 22ND 2012
Good column. But, why did you support HB 7117 which repealed Renewable energy goals and steps to cap emissions? Just wondering since it seems a little hypocritical.
Susan Glickman
11:37PM AUG 22ND 2012
There is a much larger discussion needed here and I did not support the repeal, but let's be clear about what it did.

The repeal was of a directive from the Legislature to direct the PSC to develop a draft rule for a renewable portfolio standard (aka RPS). The fact is they did develop a rule and the Senate passed an RPS. The House - under Dean Cannon's leadership did nothing but press for oil drilling - and nothing passed.

So, what was repealed was actually something that was done. The PSC did what they were directed to do (albeit flawed).

So, while there was no imperative to repeal this and the effort was to make a political statement against policies that allow renewables to compete with fossil fuels, this repeal accomplished nothing.

The build-up of greenhouse gas emissions is an enormous problem globally and Florida MUST figure out how to move away from fossil fuels , the provision that repealed the PSC developing an RPS is NOT a huge issue one way or another. It did nothing.
Jones
11:55AM AUG 22ND 2012
Agree. Thoughtful column on all points. Clearly energy efficiency is cheaper than building a new nuke plant. That is just basic common sense, and simple math. For the life of me, I do not understand why Florida's energy policy is so hellbent on building new expensive plants, and paying the utilities more than 10 percent on their investment. They are a monopoly. No guaranteed monopoly should get 10 percent on their money at this size.
LDouglas
7:52AM AUG 22ND 2012
Great column Ms. Glickman. The best part about better efficiency and more rooftop solar to meet our growing energy needs is that the boost to Florida's economy (and energy independence) makes a good enough case and we don't have to bring up "sustainability". ;-)

Otherwise, I am hesitant about promoting increasing the use of biomass as fuel. For one, if we're growing biomass to use as fuel, we won't be growing food on that land. As the population grows, along with the shift in growing patterns and other challenges of climate change, I believe so will our need to use all available agricultural land to grow food.

Along the same lines, in many places of the country we're losing topsoil, and some components of fertilizer are a finite resource. I just don't think it can be sustained for long to use our finite fertilizer resources to grow fuel while at the same time, burning compost (alternative to fertilizer) and which will eventually become topsoil. (Unless of course, we stabilize population growth.)

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.