The GRU Authority CEO is clear - he wants GRU to "exit the energy generation business". The Commission is clear - we are committed to locally owned, renewable energy. How do these stack up?
Awesome post, as always, Bryan. I hope that you will continue to be one of our community's main spokespeople for the very important decision that we have to make in November to rid ourselves of the GRU Authority. We do not need our local utility being run by Ron Desantis stand-ins.
It's been very bizarre to see Ed's departure from The Energy Authority's IRP. Before he began favoring his political alliances over data, Ed had praised The Energy Authority and their work crafting GRU IRPs in the past.
I also very much appreciate you highlighting exactly what other utilities throughout our state are doing on this front. The "pecuniary interests" and industry "best practices" that the Authority constantly refers to when it is convenient to do so demand a closer examination of what other utilities, big and small, are doing in terms of the deployment of solar + storage. Including some of the folks that Ed is proposing we buy power from (e.g., FPL)!
And lastly, let's not forget a very important component of the larger equation. GRU's most recently-crafted IRP called for a more aggressive (though I think not aggressive enough) investment in conservation services for its customers. The current GRU leadership seems poised to abandon those sorts of investments altogether, if their current actions are any indication. Ed talks constantly about GRU being a "utility its customers can afford" while he abandons programs that specifically work to reduce the energy burden of GRU's customers most in need of assistance.
The bottom line, as Bryan has laid out so clearly, is that we need to be done with Ed Bielarski and the Authority once and for all. Onward to November!
Thanks Brian and noted that one of the first steps Bilarsky and the Guv’s hand appointed board did was take away the solar initiative of Net Metering for GRU customers and the local solar industry. Just further evidence of their ignorance of benefits locals supplying solar power to GRU during peak usage can bring and assist in bringing down cost.
Thank you for the detailed post. The most recent IRP posted on the GRU web site is dated 2019. This recent interim assessment, commissioned by the GRU Authority (thank you, GRU Authority) - to which the post refers appears to be Powerpoint only. Frankly, I am skeptical about solar and batteries becoming the mainstay of GRU's future energy generation. As you noted, the sun doesn't always shine and batteries can only store energy for so long. On the other hand, natural gas is a cheap, environmentally friendly source of energy that powers 33% of all electricity production in the United States. (Source: Wikipedia) In fact, the US leads the world in natural gas production. So why not have GRU build new, energy efficient natural gas fired production facilities, something with which GRU engineers are well familiar? Your post points out that natural gas prices are volatile, yet isn't that partly a consequence of the Biden administration's abandonment of energy independence? When we return to energy independence, then natural gas prices may very well stabilize at a lower level. The U.S. Energy Information Administration that says we have enough domestic natural gas to last for 86 years, at least, and that proven U.S. reserves keep rising every year. And, it should be noted that we can ship natural gas to Europe and other places that depend on it, something that's not possible with solar power. It reminds me of the inflated promises about the low cost of biofuel energy production, i.e., GREC. Solar panels don't last forever, and the question of how to recycle them economically in an environmentally friendly way remains an open question. Why not continue using natural gas, the least risky and more reliable, as the backbone of GRU's energy generation, augmented by solar? Small steps before giant steps!
Thanks for the thoughtful response Andy, let me go through these:
1.) The IRP was basically done when this was put out. The data is there, and they were putting it into a final format when the Authority all resigned in April and a new one appointed. For all intents and purposes the data is finalized. Ed stopped the IRP, but the data is solid and public.
2.) I think the main benefit of solar, in pure economic terms, is that it has no ongoing fuel costs. Both natural gas and solar have upfront capital costs, but then solar is essentially free. Natural gas needs more maintenance and needs fuel to run. That makes it a lot more expensive in the long run. There are difficulties in implementing solar, but the cost pencils out.
3.) I'm not sure if Biden "abandoned energy independence", I believe 2023 was the largest year of oil production on record.
4.) This is the direction of the market. FPL, Duke, JEA, OUC, you name it. They're investing in solar energy in the same exact way that GRU planned because that's how the numbers work out. If they thought it was "less risky, more reliable" then they would be doing that, but they're not.
There are two ways to define energy independence: One definition says energy independence means zero imports of oil & gas. The other, more common, definition means that a nation's exports exceed imports. By that second definition, the U.S. became energy independent in 2019. According to Forbes, 2022 was the highest level of energy independence since "before 1950." Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/facts-behind-frack) reports that hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has made possible the extraction of huge amounts of oil & gas from previously inaccessible deposits in shale rock. However, there are concerns about the long-term effects of fracking, including the use of toxic chemicals that may seep into ground water, the release of methane gas into the atmosphere, and possible mini-earthquakes caused by the injection of fluids a kilometer or more beneath earth's surface. Because hydraulic fracturing is relatively new, there is not much data available yet to show cause-and-effect relationships. If fracking were to be banned, it seems that the U.S. would once again become a net importer of energy. Solar is definitely a part of the energy future, however it seems unlikely to provide enough to be the sole source of power.
Thanks for engaging on this important topic, Andy. If you read Bryan's post, and the IRP data, having "...GRU build new, energy efficient natural gas fired production facilities" is exactly what's called for. Right alongside solar + storage. Though some of my environmental friends don't love it, I think that this is a solid plan for now. The energy sector is in a phase of rapid evolution, so these plans will need to continue to be re-evaluated every few years, which is another nice thing about this plan as is currently crafted; smaller, more adaptable investments in our energy infrastructure that allow us to change course rather than massive investments in large-scale generation that we'll be stuck with for decades.
Also, to your point regarding the volatility of natural gas prices, that has been the case for natural gas for a long time. Just look at where we were with natural prices a couple of years ago. It's the case regardless of which administration controls the White House, and the opening up of our natural gas production to the rest of the world (i.e., "shipping natural gas to Europe and other places that depend on it") is likely to make the price volatility for domestic consumers increase, not decrease.
Awesome post, as always, Bryan. I hope that you will continue to be one of our community's main spokespeople for the very important decision that we have to make in November to rid ourselves of the GRU Authority. We do not need our local utility being run by Ron Desantis stand-ins.
It's been very bizarre to see Ed's departure from The Energy Authority's IRP. Before he began favoring his political alliances over data, Ed had praised The Energy Authority and their work crafting GRU IRPs in the past.
I also very much appreciate you highlighting exactly what other utilities throughout our state are doing on this front. The "pecuniary interests" and industry "best practices" that the Authority constantly refers to when it is convenient to do so demand a closer examination of what other utilities, big and small, are doing in terms of the deployment of solar + storage. Including some of the folks that Ed is proposing we buy power from (e.g., FPL)!
And lastly, let's not forget a very important component of the larger equation. GRU's most recently-crafted IRP called for a more aggressive (though I think not aggressive enough) investment in conservation services for its customers. The current GRU leadership seems poised to abandon those sorts of investments altogether, if their current actions are any indication. Ed talks constantly about GRU being a "utility its customers can afford" while he abandons programs that specifically work to reduce the energy burden of GRU's customers most in need of assistance.
The bottom line, as Bryan has laid out so clearly, is that we need to be done with Ed Bielarski and the Authority once and for all. Onward to November!
Thanks Brian and noted that one of the first steps Bilarsky and the Guv’s hand appointed board did was take away the solar initiative of Net Metering for GRU customers and the local solar industry. Just further evidence of their ignorance of benefits locals supplying solar power to GRU during peak usage can bring and assist in bringing down cost.
Thank you for the detailed post. The most recent IRP posted on the GRU web site is dated 2019. This recent interim assessment, commissioned by the GRU Authority (thank you, GRU Authority) - to which the post refers appears to be Powerpoint only. Frankly, I am skeptical about solar and batteries becoming the mainstay of GRU's future energy generation. As you noted, the sun doesn't always shine and batteries can only store energy for so long. On the other hand, natural gas is a cheap, environmentally friendly source of energy that powers 33% of all electricity production in the United States. (Source: Wikipedia) In fact, the US leads the world in natural gas production. So why not have GRU build new, energy efficient natural gas fired production facilities, something with which GRU engineers are well familiar? Your post points out that natural gas prices are volatile, yet isn't that partly a consequence of the Biden administration's abandonment of energy independence? When we return to energy independence, then natural gas prices may very well stabilize at a lower level. The U.S. Energy Information Administration that says we have enough domestic natural gas to last for 86 years, at least, and that proven U.S. reserves keep rising every year. And, it should be noted that we can ship natural gas to Europe and other places that depend on it, something that's not possible with solar power. It reminds me of the inflated promises about the low cost of biofuel energy production, i.e., GREC. Solar panels don't last forever, and the question of how to recycle them economically in an environmentally friendly way remains an open question. Why not continue using natural gas, the least risky and more reliable, as the backbone of GRU's energy generation, augmented by solar? Small steps before giant steps!
Thanks for the thoughtful response Andy, let me go through these:
1.) The IRP was basically done when this was put out. The data is there, and they were putting it into a final format when the Authority all resigned in April and a new one appointed. For all intents and purposes the data is finalized. Ed stopped the IRP, but the data is solid and public.
2.) I think the main benefit of solar, in pure economic terms, is that it has no ongoing fuel costs. Both natural gas and solar have upfront capital costs, but then solar is essentially free. Natural gas needs more maintenance and needs fuel to run. That makes it a lot more expensive in the long run. There are difficulties in implementing solar, but the cost pencils out.
3.) I'm not sure if Biden "abandoned energy independence", I believe 2023 was the largest year of oil production on record.
4.) This is the direction of the market. FPL, Duke, JEA, OUC, you name it. They're investing in solar energy in the same exact way that GRU planned because that's how the numbers work out. If they thought it was "less risky, more reliable" then they would be doing that, but they're not.
There are two ways to define energy independence: One definition says energy independence means zero imports of oil & gas. The other, more common, definition means that a nation's exports exceed imports. By that second definition, the U.S. became energy independent in 2019. According to Forbes, 2022 was the highest level of energy independence since "before 1950." Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/facts-behind-frack) reports that hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has made possible the extraction of huge amounts of oil & gas from previously inaccessible deposits in shale rock. However, there are concerns about the long-term effects of fracking, including the use of toxic chemicals that may seep into ground water, the release of methane gas into the atmosphere, and possible mini-earthquakes caused by the injection of fluids a kilometer or more beneath earth's surface. Because hydraulic fracturing is relatively new, there is not much data available yet to show cause-and-effect relationships. If fracking were to be banned, it seems that the U.S. would once again become a net importer of energy. Solar is definitely a part of the energy future, however it seems unlikely to provide enough to be the sole source of power.
Thanks for engaging on this important topic, Andy. If you read Bryan's post, and the IRP data, having "...GRU build new, energy efficient natural gas fired production facilities" is exactly what's called for. Right alongside solar + storage. Though some of my environmental friends don't love it, I think that this is a solid plan for now. The energy sector is in a phase of rapid evolution, so these plans will need to continue to be re-evaluated every few years, which is another nice thing about this plan as is currently crafted; smaller, more adaptable investments in our energy infrastructure that allow us to change course rather than massive investments in large-scale generation that we'll be stuck with for decades.
Also, to your point regarding the volatility of natural gas prices, that has been the case for natural gas for a long time. Just look at where we were with natural prices a couple of years ago. It's the case regardless of which administration controls the White House, and the opening up of our natural gas production to the rest of the world (i.e., "shipping natural gas to Europe and other places that depend on it") is likely to make the price volatility for domestic consumers increase, not decrease.
Thank you. Great information.