Presentation on theme: "Weaning Connecticut Automobiles off Gasoline onto Electricity Peter E Gunther Senior Research Fellow Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis REMI WEBEX."— Presentation transcript:
Weaning Connecticut Automobiles off Gasoline onto Electricity Peter E Gunther Senior Research Fellow Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis REMI WEBEX Dec 3, 2008 (888) 999-6535 firstname.lastname@example.org
Context Electric Vehicles CT Electric Generation Peak Rates and Systems Solar Rates Strategy – Solar, Bio or Combination Profit Potential Timing of Adoption – 98.8% of New by 2031 or 2050 Modeling Possible Impacts
Electric Vehicles 8 Hours to Fully Charge Distance Exceeds Daily Average of over 75% of U.S. Drivers All Electric Drive Gasoline Backup Generator Can Remember Time Charged Into Production 2010 Emerging Competitors May Be Better i.e. Go Further
CT Electricity Generation Current # in MW 2 Nuclear 2,035 2 Coal-Fired 553 26 Oil-Fired 2,487 14 Natural Gas 1,463 26 Hydro 149 Solid Waste Fac. 184 PROBLEM: IF ALL AIRCONDITINERS RUN THEY DEMAND 3+ GW. SUMMER INTERRUPTIBLE POWER PENALTIES COST $700 MILLION IN 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFUCULTIES IN EXPANDING TRANSMISSION Urgently Need to: Supply Locally to Meet Peak Demands or Curtail Peak Demands Avoid Electric Vehicles Compounding Problems
Peak Rates FERC Finds Elasticities are Small but: Response Improves with the size of the Spreads Between Peak and Off-Peak Rates Programmed Cuts in Consumption
Solar Rates Highest cost CT Generator at $1.17/kWh is Deployed Sparingly Any Generation at Lower Cost Is Better
Solar Systems Suitable for Rooftops Now 5 X Sun Experimental @ 10 X Sun
Strategy Produce at Peak to Reduce Interruptible Charges Pay Above Peak Rates for Solar Entice Vehicle Owners to Charge Off-Peak Get Vehicle Dealers to Invest and Locally Feed the Grid Consider Rebating Electricity Used to Charge EVs Maximize Value of Hot Water Track CO2eq Credits
Making It Pay Without Subsidy Dealers who Produce Solar Will Be Paid Back within Three years if: Solar Rates Exceed Californias 41.7 kWh Solar Rates Exceed Ontarios 47 kWh and Environmental TCs are $50/tonne of CO2eq and Dealers Rebate their Customers
Timing of Adoptions Slow Adoption: Growth of 0.02% in year one, 2009, followed by +10% of previous years growth rate. 98.8% of new vehicles are plug- ins by 2050. Cumulative vehicle gasoline savings of 9.5 billion gallons. Cumulative fuel taxes foregone $2.4 billion gross. CO 2eq reductions of 72.4 million tonnes Rapid Adoption: Growth of 0.02% in year one followed by +20% of previous years growth rate. 98.8% of new vehicles are plug-ins by 2031 and thereafter. Cumulative vehicle gasoline savings of 29.9 billion gallons. Cumulative fuel taxes foregone $7.5 billion gross. CO 2eq reductions of 226.7 million tonnes.
Modeling Solar Only Due to closer proximity to demand than in bio-based transmission loses 10%. Cumulative investment $23.9 billion (2008). Cumulative operating costs $198.9 million 100% human resources. Due to closer proximity to demand than in bio-based transmission loses 10%. Cumulative investment $53.1 billion (2008). Cumulative operating costs $442.0 million 100% human resources. Bio- based Only Transmission loses 25%. Cumulative investment $4.9 billion (2008). Cumulative operating costs $9.9 billion. Transmission loses 25%. Cumulative investment $10.6 billion (2008). Cumulative operating costs $31.0 billion.
Subsidy/ KW Installed GHG Credits $50/Tonne of CO 2eq Dealer Payments to Clients Years to Payout Equity at various Electricity Rates: Rates for Sale into Grid (cents/kWh) 16.6237.841.747 Subsidy/ KW Installed 1) NoneYN14.612.652.301.95 NN70.063.092.632.18 YYLoss4.173.372.67 NYLoss5.394.123.13 2) $251.25YN12.782.322.011.71 NN61.262.702.301.91 YYLoss3.652.952.34 NYLoss4.713.602.73 3) $375.00YN11.872.151.871.59 NN56.922.512.141.77 YYLoss3.392.742.17 NYLoss4.383.352.54 Years to Payout to Equity Holders from Electricity Revenues Only
Conclusions CT can build on its TOU smart metering to accelerate adoption of electric vehicles CT can overcome charges for interruptible power and strongly encourage electric vehicle owners to recharge their vehicles at off-peak Impacts to be positive in employment, labor force, population, personal income Over-reliance on bio-fuels could erode labor productivity, albeit that issue could be redressed with improved technologies Increases in personal income taxes under all scenarios were sufficient to offset gasoline sales taxes foregone Impacts on labor productivity are mixed depending on the relative weights of solar or bio-fuels
Conclusions (Continued) Potential benefits are likely to exceed those modeled since no account has been taken of both erstwhile interruptible power charges and the reduced emissions of CO 2eq and particulate matter and the consequential improvements in the quality of life and longevity. CO 2eq reductions are 72.4 million tonnes in the slow adoption cases and 226.7 million tonnes in the rapid adoption cases out to 2050.