1 / 17

Climate Action Team Presentation Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light September 12, 2007

Climate Action Team Presentation Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light September 12, 2007 (206) 615-0538 peggy.duxbury@seattle.gov. Climate Change: Seattle City Light. I. Overall objectives: Seattle City Light’s views II. Leading By Example: Seattle’s voluntary carbon reduction strategy

isaiah
Download Presentation

Climate Action Team Presentation Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light September 12, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Climate Action Team Presentation Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light September 12, 2007 (206) 615-0538 peggy.duxbury@seattle.gov

  2. Climate Change: Seattle City Light I. Overall objectives: Seattle City Light’s views II. Leading By Example: Seattle’s voluntary carbon reduction strategy III. Fed / Regional Action & NW

  3. I. Views of City Light • Climate change is real & action needed • Mandatory reductions needed • Flexible ways to reach goals: “harness market forces” • Recognize cost to inaction

  4. Seattle Times, Nov 1, 2006

  5. II. Leadership Through Example City Light’s carbon reduction path Conservation: Almost a silver bullet 667 Mayors in US / 28 in WA Support Mayor Nickels’ Climate Protection agreement

  6. The Path to Carbon Neutrality Step 1: Conservation: 580,000 tons avoided annually Step 2: Divest of Centralia coal plant: 611,000 tons eliminated Step 3: Purchased new renewables (Wind) 230,000 tons avoided annually Step 4: Purchase Offsets: 200,000 tons annually Success!2005 / 2006 Seattle City Carbon Neutral – First and only in US

  7. Benefits of Climate Neutrality Wall Street’s Favor: Moody’s improved recommendation for SCL bonds based upon low carbon emission profile First-mover advantage: Locked in long term wind before west coast mandates = higher costs Cost effective for customers: Conservation = lowers bills / Offsets cost less than $1 per year for residential customers • Catalyst for Change: Biofuels / Port Electrification

  8. Can this work for other utilities? SURE! If all utilities reduced carbon emissions 10% (proxy for City Light’s program) CO2 would be reduced 250 million tons = 46 million cars!

  9. III: Voluntary Not Enough: NW Issues around Cap and trade Characteristics of NW Power • WA Over 70% hydro • Large Role of Public Power & BPA • Conservation achieved 40% load growth • Major investments in new renewables • Diminished reliance on coal

  10. Northwest Efficiency Achievements1978 – 2005 Since 1978 Utility & BPA Programs, Energy Codes & Federal Efficiency Standards Have Produced Over 3100 aMW of Savings. SOURCE: NW Power and Conservation Council, 2007

  11. Energy Efficiency Scorecard Highest ranking states: VT, CT, CA, MA, OR, WA, NY, NJ, RI 6 21 50 9 5 25 48 12 33 49 13 35 27 18 26 41 Maine 15 New Hampshire 18 Vermont 1 Massachusetts 4 Rhode Island 9 Connecticut 1 New York 7 Pennsylvania 14 New Jersey 8 Delaware 30 Maryland 20 Dist. Columbia 22 27 35 15 38 1 46 34 35 30 43 44 45 30 23 24 46 38 49 40 11 41 15 29 Lowest ranking states (number higher due to ties):ND, WY, MS, SD, AL, MO, AR, OK, TN, AK, IN, LA, GA, VA, KY, WV, NE Source: The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006, ACEEE, June, 2007

  12. 2,000 lbs/MWh 1,500 lbs/MWh 1,000 lbs/MWh LOWEST EMISSION RATES IN US (lbs of CO2 per mwh of electricity produced)

  13. Coal Not Key to NW Resource Plans • “Coal generation has diminished in utility IRPs to the point where only one utility has a coal plant in its plan.” - IRP Status Memo, Michael Schilmoeller, Power Division, NW Power and Conservation Council, July 31, 2007 • I 937 & HB 6001 along w/ similar standards in CA & OR, favor renewables, conservation & natural gas over coal

  14. Federal / Regional Priorities • Allocation Matters! Historic Emissions penalize the NW more than any region in US • R&D money must focus equally on non coal technologies to better fit NW planning • Encourage (or don’t penalize) conservation • When CA Sneezes, NW catches cold

  15. Emission-Based Gives Many Allowances to Few Source: “Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation Owners -2004” Tons *CO2 allowance allocation based on total electricity output, including fossil, renewable, and incremental nuclear output (relative to 1990).

  16. CO2 Allocation Comparison: Emissions-Based vs. Output-Based* vs. Load-Based Source: EIA 2004 & 2005 data Tons *CO2 allowance allocation based on total electricity output, including fossil, renewable, and incremental nuclear output (relative to 1990).

  17. CONCLUSION • Hydro most vulnerable power system from unchecked climate change • Wall Street beginning to see financial value of utilities w/ low carbon emissions • Time for mandatory action & regulatory certainty

More Related