Karl Gawell from GEA makes the case for geothermal in California
Karl Gawell (right) in an interview with Stephen Lacey of Renewable Energy World (source: REW)
Francisco Rojas
4 Jul 2014
Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the U.S. Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) talks about a recently published paper, The Economic Costs and Benefits of Geothermal Energy and debates the benefits of geothermal for California.
In an opinion piece in local news, Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the U.S. Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) makes his case for why geothermal energy provides good value to the state of California.
“Before you get all steamed about geothermal power, let’s talk (“This legislation should get you steamed,” June 25). To begin, it’s important to recognize that the U.S. does not have a free market in electricity, but instead it has highly regulated markets at each state. In California, that means a complex system of laws and regulations that sometimes turn things on their head.
At its core, geothermal power is a good value. We recently published a paper (“The Economic Costs and Benefits of Geothermal Energy”) that looks at three 2014 reports — including one by the California Public Utilities Commission — all of which reached that conclusion.
Another recent study conducted for the utilities in California concluded that consumers and businesses will benefit the most if the state has a diversity of clean power technologies. That study, conducted by E3 Consulting, found that the path forward with the most geothermal had the lowest cost. Why? Because geothermal is reliable, flexible power that can meet the needs of a power system. That means it brings value and doesn’t carry some of the costs of variable power resources.
Instead, as they follow the state’s regulations, California utilities have been buying new solar power projects almost exclusively. Once thought to help address peak power needs, the over-supply of solar procurement is now leading to a new imbalance. The state power system will be facing multiple power peaks every day, requiring additional power supplies to be built in order to keep the lights on.
But it’s not just the convoluted regulations — there is also a real imbalance in the subsidies and support different technologies receive. Today, the federal government — i.e. taxpayers — pays for 30 percent of the cost of solar power systems. Geothermal does not have that incentive. On top of this, California provides significant subsidies, premium pricing, and U.S. and overseas manufacturers are offering prices based on subsidies as well. Subsidies for clean technologies might be justified and needed, but they should be available to the range of clean power options and not just one.
Speaking of cost, the residents of Kern County should be aware that solar projects are also exempt from property taxes. Geothermal plants — unlike other renewable technologies — pay substantial property taxes, as well as federal and state royalties, and buy their leases through competitive bidding. Also, geothermal projects involve significant amounts of drilling and construction work, which can provide new markets for companies in Kern County like Bakersfield Pipe and Supply, Well Analysis Group, Nabors, Rain for Rent, Schlumberger and other oil and geothermal field service providers.
When you add it all up, we believe geothermal is a truly affordable energy source for California, including Kern County.
Karl Gawell is the executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. Another View presents a critical response to a previous editorial, column or news story.”
Source: Bakersfield Californian Website
