In an unexpected filing (9/28), PG&E asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for approval to sell off nearly 2,800 MW of its 5,600 MW of hydropower and other non-nuclear generating assets to one or more investors.  PG&E also asked the CPUC’s permission to create a new state-regulated subsidiary to house all of its non-nuclear generation, which will be called PG&E Pacific. 

There is a big question surrounding the PG&E move.  Exactly which of the assets in the new subsidiary will be sold: the 2,700 MW of hydro, 1,400 MW of gas plants, 1,350 MW of batteries and pumped storage, and, or 152 MW of solar, and at what price? 

According to a filing that PG&E also made this week with the Securities & Exchange Commission, the 2023 rate base forecast for the total 5,600 GWs is $3.5 billion.

Former CEC Commissioner John Geesman, who now represents the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility asked Tom Jones, PG&E director, whether the 2,200 MW Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant will also be put up for sale during the Wednesday evening meeting of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee.  The hearing focused on what steps would be necessary to extend the life of Diablo past its federal license expirations mid-decade pursuant to new state law.  SB 846 authorizes the CDWR to give PG&E a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to keep Diablo online to 2030.  PG&E is also seeking up to $ 6 billion from the Department of Energy to keep the plant running past 2025.

Jones replied Diablo was not for sale.  “We want to sell equity in our hydropower facilities to bring in revenue,” Jones said.  PG&E’s hydropower basins cover nearly 500 miles and use water from more than 98 reservoirs.

Under the filing, PG&E said they will file for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to transfer its hydropower licenses.

PG&E’s plan to sell no more than 49.9% of its generation allows it to be the majority owner.

The SEC filing noting the potential sale came two days after PG&E revealed that the U.S Forest Service launched a criminal investigation into whether utility lines on forest service land started the Mosquito Fire burning in Placer and El Dorado counties.

In early 2020, state legislation was introduced to have the state takeover PG&E after it entered voluntary bankruptcy because of massive wildfire liability.  Sen Scott Weiner’s SB 917, however, failed to pass out of the Senate Energy Utilities & Communications Committee.

In Other PG&E News This Week

A dozen fires that ripped through Northern California in October 2017 were sparked by downed power lines owned by PG&E, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire).  The fires raged across California’s wine country, including Napa, Sonoma, Humboldt, Butte, and Mendocino counties, and killed 19 people.  PG&E announced this week that former executives agreed to a $117-million settlement over those wildfires.

PG&E also announced this week that US Forest Service officials have taken possession of a utility transmission pole and attached equipment in a criminal probe into what started a Northern California fire that has become the largest in the state this year.  The Mosquito Fire has burned over 120 square miles and has destroyed 78 homes.

At present PG&E seems to have several moving parts at several agencies – and will likely wind up in more legislative activity and hearings when the Legislature returns to work in December and next year.

UC Berkeley studied the existing electric vehicle charging stations and found several problems.  Of 657 public chargers in the Bay Area, 23% were out of order, and an additional 5% were fitted with a cable that couldn’t reach a car. 

The study did not look at Tesla charging stations since not all vehicles can charge at Tesla charging stations.  The study found that six percent of the charging stations could not initiate a charge.  Seven percent of the charging stations could not initiate a payment.  One percent had broken charging cords. Nine percent had broken or inoperable digital screens.

The UC Berkley study coincides with a Plug-In America survey.  EV users’ top complaints were broken or nonfunctional chargers, chargers being too far apart, and slow charging speed.  One-third of the EV users polled said DC fast charging stations were a concern.  A similar percentage stated the lack of charging locations was an issue. More than 25 percent of those polled complained of slow charging speed. The complaint numbers dropped significantly for Tesla drivers and Tesla’s Supercharger Network.

Another study, published by J.D. Power, found that 20% of respondents showed up at a public station and did not charge up; of those, 72% said the station was out of service. 

As an LA Times article stated last week, “If I were grading the public charger industry, right now I’d issue a harsh D+.  At the parent-teacher conference, I’d say that Johnny is not living up to his potential.  Let’s hope he applies himself.”

The Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SACCWIS), which is composed of the CAISO, CCEC, and CPUC – filed a draft report to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) this week (9/20) recommending that the OTC facilities slated for retirement remain on-line for an additional 3 and 5 years. 

Specifically, the report recommends that the SWRCB allow three AES facilities, the 1,137 MW Alamitos, 1,491 MW Ormond Beach and 226 MW Huntington Beach facilities to stay online another three years, to the end of 2026. 

This would be the second three-year extension of these plants, with a combined capacity of 2,854 MW.  Originally, they were slated for closure in 2010.  SACCWIS did not propose keeping the fourth AES plant, the Redondo Beach plant, online for an additional three years.

SACCWIS also recommends keeping the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) 324 MW Scattergood units 1 and 2 online for an additional five years, moving the closure date from December 31, 2024, to the end of 2029.

To date, 16 power plants totaling nearly 18,000 megawatts (MW) in the CAISO balancing area have been shuttered or repowered with air cooling.  While the CEC has recently insisted, as has the Governor’s Office, that closing natural gas-fueled OTC units remains a goal of the state, the CPUC in its IRP and ongoing concerns about grid reliability has now, for the second time in 3 years, resulting in a call for those resources to stay online until the transition to a 100% clean grid is further along.

According to the report, the cost of keeping the natural gas-fueled plants online longer could be covered by part of the $3 billion allocated to keep existing fossil fuel power plants running in the newly created Strategic Reliability Plan (AB 205).  CDWR and the CEC are to manage this fund and contracting.

The “extensions would be responsive to concerns regarding grid reliability and would bolster the electrical power supply that is essential for the welfare of the residents of the State of California,” according to the State Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures’ proposal. 

SACCWIS cites the updated state energy reliability analysis that concluded that more intense heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and supply chain constraints, are driving the need for the coastal power plant extensions.  It highlights the finding that there could be a 10,000 MW shortage by the summer of 2025.

The water board will hold a public hearing on the draft plan’s proposed coastal plant extensions on September 30.

Report of the Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SACCWIS): 2022 Special Report of the Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (ca.gov)

As we had previously reported and expected Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed his climate package of bills which he proposed late in the legislative session, and a number of other climate bills that had been part of our tracking list this session.  The new laws will now require the state to become carbon-neutral by 2045, produce 90% of its electricity from clean sources by 2035, create safety zones around oil wells near homes, and draft rules to fast-track permitting of technology that aim to remove carbon from the air. 

Newsom proudly stated at a press conference on Friday in Vallejo that “We were able to advance not just our ideals, but this cause during the most extreme test that this state has ever faced, and we’re proud of that,” Newsom said, referring to the extreme heat wave that shattered thousands of records statewide and brought the grid within megawatts of rolling blackouts.

The package signed by Newsom, totaling 40 pieces of legislation, includes measures on electric vehicles, transmission infrastructure, water, and emissions.

Among the most major are laws requiring the state to get the entire economy carbon neutral by 2045, generate enough renewable energy to cover 90 percent of needs by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040, and streamline permitting for carbon removal and storage projects.

While Newsom’s actions represent a significant victory, the fight between environmentalists and the oil and gas industry is far from over, given that many of the laws punt to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the air agency already working on a major plan to bring emissions down by midcentury.  The agency is already facing intense lobbying as it works to finish the report by the end of the year.

Newsom: “This month has been a wake-up call for all of us that later is too late to act on climate change. California isn’t waiting anymore.  Together with the Legislature, California is taking the most aggressive action on climate our nation has ever seen.  We’re cleaning the air we breathe, holding the big polluters accountable, and ushering in a new era for clean energy.  That’s climate action done the California Way – and we’re not only doubling down, but we’re also just getting started.”

State Senator John Laird: “If we talked about having this ceremony a year ago, I think none of us in the legislature would have thought it was possible.”

Newsom also committed more than $54 billion to address climate change as he heads to Climate Week in New York City.  The full set of bills the Governor signed that work toward achieving the state’s climate goals include:

• AB 1384 (Gabriel) – Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act of 2022.
• AB 1389 (Gómez Reyes) – Clean Transportation Program: project funding preferences.
• AB 1749 (Cristina Garcia) – Community emissions reduction programs: toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants.
• AB 1757 (Cristina Garcia) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: climate goal: natural and working lands.
• AB 1857 (Cristina Garcia) – Solid waste.
• AB 1909 (Friedman) – Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.
• AB 1985 (Rivas) – Organic waste: recovered organic waste product procurement targets.
• AB 2061 (Ting) – Transportation electrification: electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
• AB 2075 (Ting) – Energy: electric vehicle charging standards.
• AB 2108 (Rivas) – Water policy: environmental justice: disadvantaged and tribal communities.
• AB 2204 (Horvath) – Clean energy: Labor and Workforce Development Agency: Deputy Secretary for Climate.
• AB 2278 (Kalra) – Natural resources: biodiversity and conservation report.
• AB 2316 (Ward) – Public Utilities Commission: customer renewable energy subscription programs and the community renewable energy program.
• AB 2440 (Irwin) – Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022.
• AB 2446 (Holden) – Embodied carbon emissions: construction materials.
• AB 2622 (Mullin) –  Sales and use taxes: exemptions: California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project: transit buses.
• AB 2700 (McCarty) – Transportation electrification: electrical distribution grid upgrades.
• AB 2836 (Eduardo Garcia) – Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program: vehicle registration fees: California tire fee.
• SB 379 (Wiener) – Residential solar energy systems: permitting.
• SB 529 (Hertzberg) – Electricity: electrical transmission facilities.
• SB 887 (Becker) – Electricity: transmission facility planning.
• SB 1010 (Skinner) – Air pollution: state vehicle fleet.
• SB 1063 (Skinner) – Energy: appliance standards and cost-effective measures.
• SB 1075 (Skinner) – Hydrogen: green hydrogen: emissions of greenhouse gases.
• SB 1109 (Caballero) – California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: bioenergy projects.
• SB 1145 (Laird) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: greenhouse gas emissions: dashboard.
• SB 1158 (Becker) – Retail electricity suppliers: emissions of greenhouse gases.
• SB 1203 (Becker) – Net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases: state agency operations.
• SB 1205 (Allen) – Water rights: appropriation.
• SB 1215 (Newman) – Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003: covered battery-embedded products.
• SB 1230 (Limόn) – Zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicle incentive programs: requirements.
• SB 1251 (Gonzalez) – Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development: Zero-Emission Vehicle Market Development Office: Zero-Emission Vehicle Equity Advocate.
• SB 1291 (Archuleta) – Hydrogen-fueling stations: administrative approval.
• SB 1314 (Limόn) – Oil and gas: Class II injection wells: enhanced oil recovery.
• SB 1322 (Allen) – Energy: petroleum pricing.
• SB 1382 (Gonzalez) – Air pollution: Clean Cars 4 All Program: Sales and Use Tax Law: zero emissions vehicle exemption.

• AB 2251 (Calderon) – Urban forestry: statewide strategic plan.
• SB 1174 (Hertzberg) – Electricity: eligible renewable energy or energy storage resources: transmission and interconnection.

As a reminder, the bills that were specific to Newsom’s climate package that was proposed late in the session are as follow:

• AB 1279 (Muratsuchi) will put into state law the existing policy goal of reaching statewide “carbon neutrality” by 2045.
• SB 1020 (Laird) will set benchmarks that the state electric grid has to hit before sourcing all of its power from renewable sources by 2045.
• SB 905 (Caballero) will require the Air Resources Board to develop regulations for projects that capture, reuse and store carbon emissions.
• SB 1137 (Gonzalez) will ban the drilling of any new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, nursing homes, and hospitals, effectively banning the activity from most developed areas in the state

For the full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov