Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be...

26
Mitigation Working Group: Energy February 21, 2020

Transcript of Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be...

Page 1: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Mitigation Working Group: Energy

February 21, 2020

Page 2: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

2/21 MWG Energy Meeting

Agenda today:

1. Clean and Renewable Energy Standard (CARES)

2. Coal Generation in MD

3. GGRA Modeling Updates

Page 3: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 1: CARES

• Achieve 100% Clean Electricity

– Draw upon all potential technologies to get there

• Find most cost-effective solution

– Make technologies compete to get to 100%

• Foster home-grown energy

• Build upon and improve the RPS

Page 4: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

What does CARES do?

Before 2030:

1. Build upon CEJA’s Solar and Offshore Wind

2. Eliminate controversial Tier 1

3. Replace that Tier 1 with Maryland clean and renewable energy

Through 2040:

4. Count existing nuclear (Calvert Cliffs), but don’t credit it

5. Get to 100% by 2040

Page 5: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

1. Building Upon the RPS/CEJA

• CARES fully incorporates existing MD solar and offshore wind goals

• New MD clean energy category would deploy even more solar

5.5% 6.0%7.5%

11.5%14.5%

1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)

CEJA OSW (estimated)

Solar

5.5% 6.0%7.5%

11.5%14.5%

1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)

CARES OSW (estimated)

Solar

Note: OSW shown as estimated share of sales, but is MW requirement in law. Estimates here reflect already approved 368MW plus 1,200MW of round 2.

Page 6: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

2. Eliminate Controversial Tier 1

• Eliminates Municipal Solid Waste and Black Liquor from Tier 1

• These resources have historically been used for ~25% to ~45% of non-carve-out Tier 1

Source: MD PSC most recent (2018) RPS report.

Page 7: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

3. Replace MSW & BLQ with MD Clean and Renewable Energy

• CARES adds a new clean energy requirement in which new clean resources compete with MD renewables

• That requirement supplants non-carve-out Tier 1, approximately at MSW & BLQ shares

5.5% 6.0% 7.5%11.5%

14.5%1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

15.2%

22.0%22.0%

26.5%

27.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)

CEJA

5.5% 6.0% 7.5%11.5%

14.5%1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

15.2%

22.0%19.5%

20.7%

17.1%2.5%

5.8%

10.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)

CARES

Clean Energy

Non-Carve-Out Tier 1

OSW (estimated)

Solar

Page 8: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

3 (cont’d). Maryland Clean and Renewable Energy

• Eligible resources for Clean Energy requirement1. RECs from any Maryland Tier 1 resource (including Solar)

2. Clean Energy Resource Credits (CERCs) from MD:

a) New nuclear power

b) New efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP)– Would need to apply new & emerging tech to achieve full

credit

c) Natural gas or qualifying biomass with Carbon Capture and Utilization or Storage (CCUS) that results in indefinite sequestration of captured CO2– Qualifying biomass also receives RECs

d) Other emerging net-zero technology recognized by the PSC

Page 9: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

3 (cont’d). What resources will be deployed for Clean requirement?

• RPS and CARES are market mechanisms, so the least-cost resource mix ought to be deployed

– (Utilities will purchased cheapest credits available)

• CARES requirement accepts any CERCs or MD RECs

– MD Solar is likely most plentiful/lowest cost growth opportunity in that category

Page 10: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

4. Count existing nuclear, but don’t credit it

• Existing nuclear provides ~22% - ~25% of retail sales.

• CARES counts that generation toward the goal, and increases the goal accordingly

• CARES does not provide credits for that generation

5.5% 6.0% 7.5%11.5% 14.5%1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

15.2%22.0%

22.0%

26.5%

27.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)

CEJA

5.5% 6.0% 7.5%11.5% 14.5%1.3%

2.0%

8.4%

15.2%22.0% 19.5%

20.7%

17.1%2.5%

5.8%

10.0%

25%

25%

25%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Go

al (

% o

f re

tail

sale

s)CARES

Approx. Calvert Cliffs(uncredited)

Clean Energy

Non-Carve-Out Tier 1

OSW (estimated)

Solar

Page 11: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

5. Get to 100% by 2040

• From 2030 to 2040, CARES increases the new clean energy carve-out (eligibility includes all clean resources and all MD renewables) to reach 100%

7.5%14.5% 14.5%1.3%

8.4% 8.4%19.5%

17.1%22.1%

2.5%

10.0%

30.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040

Approx. Calvert Cliffs (uncredited)

Clean Energy

Non-Carve-Out Tier 1

OSW (estimated)

Solar

Page 12: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Technology-Specific Considerations

• Hydropower

• Existing Nuclear

• New Nukes and Carbon Capture

• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture (BECCS)

• Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

Page 13: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Hydropower

• CARES bill incorporates all hydro into Tier 1

• Lots of feedback on that already

• Open to improvements to that approach

Page 14: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Existing Nuclear

• CARES intends to account for only MD Nuclear

• RPS definition of “MD” may include nearby PA resources

• MDE & MEA working on clarifying language

Page 15: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

New Nukes & Carbon Capture

• May or may not be technically or economically feasible

– Would compete with other clean energy and MD renewables, so would not be deployed unless competitive

• CARES credits CCUS in proportion to share of carbon captured (e.g. capturing 50% of emissions gets 50% credit)

• CCUS Crediting requires either permanent storage or utilization that results in indefinite sequestration

Page 16: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture (BECCS)

• Potential negative-emissions technology

• Gets double-credit under CARES

• Qualifying biomass facilities with CCUS get:

– 1 REC for burning qualifying biomass

– 1 CERC for capturing the carbon (depends on % captured)

Page 17: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Combined Heat and Power

• Partial credit based on efficiency:– >90% efficiency gets full credit (1 CERC per MWh)

– 75% to <90% gets ¾ credit (0.75 CERC per MWh)

– 60% to <75% gets half credit (0.5 CERC per MWh)

– <60% efficiency gets no credit

• Recent installations in Maryland averaged 77% efficiency (0.75 CERC per MWh)

• Above 90% efficiency extremely difficult to achieve using conventional gas-powered CHP

Page 18: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 1 Discussion

Page 19: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 2: Coal Generation in MD

GGRA Draft Plan Estimates

Coal generation declines by ~67% over next decade

• 2014: 17.6 TWh

• 2020: 10.1 TWh

• 2030: 3.23 TWh

Decline due to:

• Markets (cheap gas & renewables)

• Policies (RGGI, RPS, CARES, air regs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2015 2020 2025 2030

MD

Ele

ctri

city

So

urc

es

(TW

h)

Rooftop PV

Utility Solar

Offshore Wind

Onshore Wind

Hydro

CARES Resource (egCHP)

Imports

Municipal Solid Waste

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

Nuclear

Maryland electricity generation and imports in GGRA Draft Plan through 2030. CARES and RGGI reduce fossil generation and increase clean & renewable generation. **Analysis assumes no new nuclear or carbon capture before 2030**

Page 20: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 2 Discussion

Page 21: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 3: GGRA Modeling Updates

MDE will update emissions modeling, including:

1. More recent data sources

2. Most recent emissions inventory (2017 instead of 2014)

3. Specific policy details

Goal: Update background assumptions to start on updated reference case (results as early as next MWG)

(policy case updates wait until outreach complete)

Page 22: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Updating Inventory Year

PATHWAYS (& GGRA Draft) built upon the 2014 inventory

– We should update to latest inventory, HOWEVER 2017 was low…

2006 Baseline

2017 Emissions

2014 Emissions

25 by 20

40 by 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

MD

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

Acc

ou

nti

ng

for

Seq

ue

stra

tio

n

(MM

TCO

2e

)

Page 23: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

2014 vs 2017 Weather

Emissions are partially weather-driven

2017 winter was mild(power and building emissions were low)

2014 winter was rough (polar vortex)

Heating energy demand (heating degree days at BWI)

Page 24: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

MDE Proposal

Update PATHWAYS to 2017 inventory, except:

• Building Emissions: Base on 2018 data (if available) or 2015-2017 average

• Electricity Emissions: Base on 2018 or 2019 data

– Note that 2019 electricity emissions were similar to 2017.

Page 25: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Other Updates

• Updated technology costs:

– renewable costs (NREL)

– fuel costs (EIA)

– and EV costs (TCI modeling)

• Population & energy growth (MDP, EIA, others)

• Policy specifics: CARES and TCI (policy cases updated after outreach process)

• Federal policies

Page 26: Mitigation Working Group: Energy - Maryland · New Nukes & Carbon Capture •May or may not be technically or economically feasible –Would compete with other clean energy and MD

Topic 3 Discussion