Being green and the common citizen: developing alternative methods of renewable energy investment through solar power and efficient building design

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

BEING GREEN AND THE COMMON CITIZEN
DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT
THROUGH SOLAR POWER AND EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN

by
Gregory Swanson
_______________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Gregory Swanson
ii

Dedication
This could have never been completed without the support of my parents. The first steps of
my education they had been behind me with a whip. Every step I have taken since, they
have been next to me with an ear. Without them I would have never seen my potential and
could not have made it this far.

And to my brother, who will always be there in my heart

iii

Acknowledgements
The faculty at USC has become very dear to me. In 1997 I began my education at USC and
received my BA in Architecture. In 2006 I wandered on campus to reminisce about old times
and ran into Doug Noble, who convinced me in a matter of 10 minutes to apply to Building
Science. A few months later I was back at it again. Now as I graduate I am looking at the
world with fresh eyes again. In practice I forgot about what it really meant to be a force of
change. Now change feels like it is pushing me in the back. I only hope I can size up to my
own bar.

My family has been more supportive than anyone. There is no way I can express what they
have done for me, and no words can say what they mean to me.

If it wasn’t for my fiancé Nelly Arzumanian, I would have never taken that stroll to USC. She
reminded me that I had potential to be something bigger and better. I do have to admit I
didn’t like the idea of her become a Doctor in Psychology while I only had a BA. How can I
win domestic arguments against a force like that? As she knows, and everyone else who
knows me, I cannot do anything without putting a good joke in. I love her dearly.

And thank you to Marc Schiler; he went above and beyond to assist me on this project.
iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... x
Glossary ................................................................................................................................. xiii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Reducing Pollution: America’s Point of View ....................................................................... 1
Reducing Pollution: Where is the biggest impact? .............................................................. 3
Reducing Pollution: The Next Step ...................................................................................... 5
Thesis Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2: Existing Energy Structure – United States ........................................................... 15
Environmental Law: National & California ......................................................................... 22
Existing Energy Structure: California ................................................................................. 26
California Energy Crisis: Jan 1998 – Nov 2003 ................................................................. 33
California Energy Crisis: Enron .......................................................................................... 43
Energy Investment: Move to the Future ............................................................................. 47
Energy Investment: Renewable Energy and Government Interest ................................... 51

Chapter 3: Existing Renewable Energy ................................................................................. 57

Chapter 4: Los Angeles Population & Being “Green” ............................................................ 70

Chapter 5: Solar Power - History ........................................................................................... 75
Concentrated Solar Power ................................................................................................. 87
Concentrated Solar Power: Solar One .............................................................................. 96
Concentrated Solar Power: Solar Two ............................................................................ 102
Concentrated Solar Power: Solar Tres ............................................................................ 108
Concentrated Solar Power: PS10 .................................................................................... 117
Concentrated Solar Power: Nevada Solar One ............................................................... 121
PV Solar Power: Nellis Solar Power Plant ....................................................................... 125

v

Chapter 6: Thesis Proposal ................................................................................................. 128
Power to the People ......................................................................................................... 128
Processing Research Data .............................................................................................. 131

Chapter 7: Catalina Case Study .......................................................................................... 135
Existing Infrastructure & Renewable Proposal ................................................................ 135
Weather and Climate ....................................................................................................... 140
Pebbly Beach Generation Station (PBGS) ...................................................................... 143
Water Supply ................................................................................................................... 153

Chapter 8: Catalina Case Study Analysis ............................................................................ 157
Energy Review & Cost to the Consumer ......................................................................... 157
PV Installation Analysis.................................................................................................... 158
CSP Installation Analysis ................................................................................................. 163
Recycling Solar Two ........................................................................................................ 168
Efficiency of Recycling Solar Two .................................................................................... 169

Chapter 9: Energy Modeling Software ................................................................................. 179

Chapter 10: Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 197
Research Summary ......................................................................................................... 197
PV vs. CSP ...................................................................................................................... 206
Solar Power vs. Building Efficiently ................................................................................. 208
New Green Power Investment ......................................................................................... 209
Future Study .................................................................................................................... 212

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 215

vi

List of Tables
TABLE 1: CALIFORNIA POWER PLANTS IN REVIEW (CEC, 2007) .................................. 35

TABLE 2: CALIFORNIA POWER EMERGENCIES (DOE & EIA, 2005) ............................... 38

TABLE 3: ROTATING BLACKOUTS IN CALIFORNIA 2000-2001 ....................................... 38

TABLE 4: CA WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY PRICES – MONTHLY MEANS ($/MWH) ........ 41

TABLE 5: PER CAPITA ENERGY PER PERSON (KWH) (CEC, 2008) ............................... 52

TABLE 6: CALIFORNIA GHG REDUCTION STRATEGIES (CEC, 2008) ............................ 54

TABLE 7: UTILITY GREEN PRICING PROGRAMS BY PREMIUM AMOUNT .................... 58

TABLE 8: LADWP POWER CONTENT LABEL (LADWP, 2007) .......................................... 62

TABLE 9: SMUD POWER CONTENT LABEL (SMUD, 2007) .............................................. 65

TABLE 10: SCE POWER CONTENT LABEL (SCE, 2007) ................................................... 69

TABLE 11: SOLAR PANEL PAYBACK @
DIFFERENT INSTALL COSTS (SOLARBUZZ, 2008) .................................................. 77

TABLE 12: CPUC & CEC PV COST EVALUATIONS, IN 2004 DOLLARS (CHEN, 2006) ... 79

TABLE 13: CSP RESOURCE POTENTIAL .......................................................................... 88

TABLE 14: 2001 COST ESTIMATIONS OF
PV PANTS VS. CSP PLANTS (QUASCHNING, 2001) ................................................. 88

TABLE 15: THREE MAJOR TYPOLOGIES OF CSP (GREENPEACE, 2005) ..................... 94

TABLE 16: SUNLIGHT, CSP THERMAL STORAGE AND
OUTPUT POWER CHART (DOE) ................................................................................. 95

TABLE 17: CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE MAJOR CSP TYPOLOGIES (GCEP, 2006) . 95

TABLE 18: HEAT TRANSFER FLUID (HTF) CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 95

TABLE 19: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: SOLAR ONE ........................................ 97

TABLE 20: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: SOLAR TWO ..................................... 103

TABLE 21: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: SOLAR TRES .................................... 109

TABLE 22: SOLAR TRES COST BREAKDOWN (SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) ................ 112

vii

TABLE 23: HELIOSTAT COST ESTIMATE - DIRECT CAPITOL COST
(SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003 P. 262) ........................................................................... 113

TABLE 24: CAPITOL COST OF RECEIVER (SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) ....................... 114

TABLE 25: COST IMPROVEMENTS (SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) .................................. 115

TABLE 26: TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR 50 MW PLANTS (ORTEGA, 2007?) .... 116

TABLE 27: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: PS10 .................................................. 118

TABLE 28: PS10 PROJECTED COSTS (1 € = $0.91 RATE 09/2001) (ROMERO, 2002) . 120

TABLE 29: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: NEVADA SOLAR ONE ...................... 122

TABLE 30: SOLAR POWER PROJECT PROFILE: NELLIS PV SOLAR POWER PLANT
(SUNPOWER, 2008) (NELLIS AFB, 2008) (ENERGYPLUS, 2007) ........................... 127

TABLE 31: HEATING FUEL USAGE (CITY-DATA.COM, 2008) ........................................ 137

TABLE 32: CATALINA ISLAND AVERAGE HIGH AND LOW TEMP. (CATALINA, 2008) . 141

TABLE 33: CATALINA WEATHER DATA FROM 30 YEARS OF COLLECTION
(ECATALINA, 2008) ..................................................................................................... 141

TABLE 34: RESULTS OF EMISSIONS TESTING ON
EMD 16-645 ENGINES (FRITZ, 2004) ........................................................................ 146

TABLE 35: MONTHLY ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION FOR CATALINA ISLAND
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 148

TABLE 36: MONTHLY ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, OUTSIDE AVALON
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 149

TABLE 37: CATALINA ISLAND TOTAL ELEC. ANNUAL USAGE FOR 2005
(SWANSON, 2008) ...................................................................................................... 150

TABLE 38: CATALINA ISLAND RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ELEC. USAGE, 2005
(SWANSON, 2008) ...................................................................................................... 150

TABLE 39: CATALINA ISLAND TOTAL ELEC. ANNUAL USAGE FOR 2006
(SWANSON, 2008) ...................................................................................................... 151

TABLE 40: CATALINA ISLAND RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL ELEC. USAGE, 2006
(SWANSON, 2008) ...................................................................................................... 151

TABLE 41: CATALINA ISLAND TOTAL ELEC. ANNUAL USAGE,
PROJECTED FOR 2007 (SWANSON, 2008) ............................................................. 152

TABLE 42: CATALINA ISLAND RES. & COM. ELEC. USAGE,
PROJECTED FOR 2007 (SWANSON, 2008) ............................................................. 152
viii

TABLE 43: WATER USAGE STATISTICS (SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ..................... 154

TABLE 44: CATALINA ISLAND TOTAL SALTWATER ANNUAL USAGE
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 155

TABLE 45: CATALINA ISLAND TOTAL SALTWATER MONTHLY USAGE
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 155

TABLE 46: CATALINA ISLAND POTABLE WATER ANNUAL USAGE
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 156

TABLE 47: CATALINA ISLAND POTABLE PEAK & AVG. USAGE
(SCE, 2007) (SWANSON, 2008) ................................................................................. 156

TABLE 48: FIELD TO TOWER EFFICIENCY: EMPIRICAL DATA & ESTIMATIONS
(SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) ...................................................................................... 169

TABLE 49: SOLAR TWO AND SOLAR TRES FIELD SUMMARY
(SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) ...................................................................................... 170

TABLE 50: HEED SIMULATION OF EL TORO - CLIMATE ZONE 8
(HEED, 2007) (SWANSON, 2007) .............................................................................. 184

TABLE 51: CASE STUDY HOME: ENERGY CODE FOR 16 ZONES
(SWANSON, 2007) ...................................................................................................... 185

TABLE 52: CASE STUDY HOME: HIGH EFFICIENCY FOR 16 ZONES
(SWANSON, 2007) ...................................................................................................... 186

TABLE 53: CASE STUDY HOME: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 187

TABLE 54: CASE STUDY HOME: BASIC UPGRADED CONSTRUCTION
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 188

TABLE 55: CASE STUDY HOME: UPGRADED + ENERGYSTAR
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 189

TABLE 56: CASE STUDY HOME: FURTHER UPGRADED CONSTRUCTION
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 190

TABLE 57: CASE STUDY HOME: UPGRADED + SLAB ON GRADE
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 191

TABLE 58: CASE STUDY HOME: SLAB + HIGH MASS WALL
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 192

TABLE 59: CASE STUDY HOME: MAXIMUM UPGRADED
FOR 16 ZONES (SWANSON, 2007) ........................................................................... 193

ix

TABLE 60: HEED SIMULATION OF AVALON, CA - CLIMATE ZONE 6
(HEED, 2007) (SWANSON, 2007) .............................................................................. 194

x

List of Figures
FIGURE 1: PATH 15 DIAGRAM (THALMAN, 2001) ............................................................. 37

FIGURE 2: ENERGY STRUCTURE DIAGRAM (SWANSON, 2008) .................................... 43

FIGURE 3: DEATH STAR (LUCASFILM, 2008) .................................................................... 44

FIGURE 4: RENEWABLE ENERGY REBATE PROGRAMS (DSIRE, 07) ........................... 56

FIGURE 5: POWER OFFSETTING ....................................................................................... 64

FIGURE 6: SOLAR PANELS (UNREFERENCED IMAGE) ................................................... 75

FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE OF “LOCAL PV” SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATION
(POWERLIGHT, 2007) .................................................................................................. 76

FIGURE 8: 12 MW GUT ERLASEE SOLAR PARK IN GERMANY,
PANELS BY SUNPOWER ............................................................................................. 81

FIGURE 9: LOS ANGELES TO DAGGETT 110 MILES BY AIR,
126 MILES BY HIGHWAY ............................................................................................. 83

FIGURE 10: KYOCERA PV CALCULATOR - LOS ANGELES & DAGGETT, CA
(KYOCERASOLAR, 2007) ............................................................................................. 85

FIGURE 11: SOLAR ONE / SOLAR TWO CSP TOWER IN DAGGETT, CA ....................... 87

FIGURE 12: CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER (CSP) 3 MAIN TYPOLOGIES
(VOLKER, 2003) ............................................................................................................ 91

FIGURE 13: ANALYSIS OF CSP TOWER & CSP TROUGH ENERGY
(SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) ........................................................................................ 93

FIGURE 14: SOLAR ONE / SOLAR TWO - DAGGETT, CA ................................................. 96

FIGURE 15: EFFECTIVE REFLECTOR AREA DIAGRAM (STINE, 2004) ........................... 98

FIGURE 16: HELIOSTAT LAYOUT PATTERN - FIELD SPACING CHART
(STINE, 2004) ................................................................................................................ 99

FIGURE 17: SOLAR ONE / SOLAR TWO - DAGGETT, CA ............................................... 102

FIGURE 18: SOLAR TWO DIAGRAM
(NANOPEDIA, 2008) (SARGENT & LUNDY, 2003) .................................................... 104

FIGURE 19: SOLAR TWO MOLTEN SALT STORAGE TANKS (DOE SUNLAB, 2000) .... 105

FIGURE 20: SOLAR TWO CONTRIBUTING ORGANIZATIONS (DOE SUNLAB, 1998) .. 106

xi

FIGURE 21: THE 120 M2 SENER HELIOSTAT UNDER TESTING AT THE PSA
(SOLARPACES, 2007) ................................................................................................ 108

FIGURE 22: SOLAR TRES 3D LAYOUT USING SENSOL ................................................ 110

FIGURE 23: SOLAR TRES OPERATION DIAGRAM (ORTEGA, 2007?) .......................... 111

FIGURE 24: PS10 AERIAL VIEW ....................................................................................... 117

FIGURE 25: PS10 DIAGRAM (EC5TH, 2006) .................................................................... 119

FIGURE 26: NEVADA SOLAR ONE, 350 ACRE FACILITY (SOLARGENIX) .................... 121

FIGURE 27: PARABOLIC TROUGH DIAGRAM (DOE SUNLAB, 2008) ............................ 123

FIGURE 28: NEVADA SOLAR ONE PARABOLIC TROUGH CLOSE UP
(SOLARGENIX) ........................................................................................................... 124

FIGURE 29: PARABOLIC TROUGH RECEIVER (DOE SUNLAB, 2008) ........................... 124

FIGURE 30: ARIEL VIEW OF NELLIS SOLAR PLANT,
JUST OUTSIDE LAS VEGAS (NELLIS AFB, 2008) .................................................... 125

FIGURE 31: CLOSE UP OF "SUNPOWER T20 TRACKER" SYSTEM
AT NELLIS AFB (NELLIS AFB, 2008) ......................................................................... 126

FIGURE 32: CATALINA ISLAND RELIEF MAP (CONSERVANCY, 2008) ......................... 135

FIGURE 33: CATALINA ISLAND MAP WITH SOLAR PATH DIAGRAM OVERLAID
(CONSERVANCY, 2008) (SQUAREONE, 2008) (ENERGYPLUS, 2007) .................. 140

FIGURE 34: WIND ROSE FOR CATALINA ISLAND, 2000-07 @ ELEV. OF 1600’
(CONSERVANCY, 2008) ............................................................................................. 142

FIGURE 35: AVALON & PEBBLY BEACH GENERATION STATION
(GOOGLEEARTH, 2008) ............................................................................................. 143

FIGURE 36: PEBBLY BEACH GENERATION STATION PLOT PLAN (SCAQMD, 2003) . 144

FIGURE 37: ONE OF THE SIX DIESEL ENGINES MANUFACTURER’S STICKER
(HEDRICK, 2007) ........................................................................................................ 146

FIGURE 38: DIESEL GENERATOR EXHAUST SYSTEM (HEDRICK, 2007) .................... 147

FIGURE 39: KYOCERA PV CALCULATOR - RESIDENTIAL 100% SOLAR POWER
(KYOCERASOLAR, 2007) ........................................................................................... 160

FIGURE 40: KYOCERA PV CALCULATOR - RESIDENTIAL 100% SOLAR POWER
(KYOCERASOLAR, 2007) ........................................................................................... 161

FIGURE 41: SOLAR ONE HELIOSTAT DESIGN (STINE, 2004) ....................................... 171
xii

FIGURE 42: BNSF RAILWAY MAP - ROUTE FROM DAGGETT
TO LONG BEACH (BNSF, 2008) ................................................................................ 174

FIGURE 43: NELLIS AFB SOLAR ARRAY (NELLIS AFB, 2008) ....................................... 177

FIGURE 44: TYPICAL ROOFTOP PV MOUNTING SYSTEM (UNIRAC, 2006) ................. 178

FIGURE 45: 16 CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ZONES (CEC, 2006) .......................................... 181

FIGURE 46: HEED GENERATED 3D MODEL OF BUILDING SIMULATION
(HEED, 2007) ............................................................................................................... 182

xiii

Glossary
Greenwashing: the act of marketing an item as “Green”, or environmentally friendly, when it
has minimal reductions on environmental impact. For example, a wholesaler marketing
flooring as “Green” because it is made from 5% to 10% post-consumer recycled content.

Photovoltaic (PV): Solar Power technology that uses solar cells to convert light from the
Sun directly to electrical energy

Local PV: PV Panels installed on or around the structure that is using the power

Centralized Facility: PV or other type of solar facility that installs in a central location,
isolated from the structure using the power. Typically done to increase efficiency via finding
optimum Solar Exposure and by incorporating many small parts into one large system

Solar Radiation: The amount of Sunlight exposure, or Solar Radiation, a location receives.

Base Demand (Base Load): A term, usually in Megawatts, describing a period in which
electrical power is expected to be provided at an average supply level.

Peak Demand (Peak Load): a term usually in Megawatts, describing a period in which
electrical power is expected to be provided for a sustained period at higher than average
supply level.

Watt (W): unit of energy equal to one joule of energy per second. Using a 60 watt light bulb
for one hour would result in 60 watt hours of energy use.

Kilowatt (kW): 1000 watts = 1 kW

Kilowatt Hour (kWh): amount of energy consumed by one kilowatt of power in one hour. If
for a period of 24 hours you are using a constant load of 2 kilowatts, at the end of the period
you will have used a total of 48 kilowatt hours.

xiv

Million Kilowatt Hour (kWh): 1 million kWh = 1,000 mWh, Million kWh is used commonly
to describe annual power generation.

Megawatt (mW): 1000 kilowatts = 1 mW

Megawatt Hour (mWh): 1000 Kilowatt Hours = 1 mWh

$/watt: a term to describe the price of manufacturing and installing an energy generation
facility. It does not refer to the price paid by the consumer for electricity. For example, a 500
watt PV array @ $15/watt would cost $7,500 installed. In comparison a 3,500 watt coal plant
@ $2.1/watt would cost $7,500 installed.

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Plant: A form of solar power using mirrors mounted on
heliostats to focus sunlight to a single, concentrated point. This focused sunlight heats up a
liquid which then, through a heat exchanger, boils water in a steam generator creating
electricity. There are two types of CSP in use currently, Power Towers & Parabolic Trough.

Solar 1: A 10 Megawatt Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Tower Plant, first of its kind,
developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Utility companies (such as LADWP,
SCE, CEC, etc). Completed in 1981, operations from 1982-1986. It was a successful
scientific study and closed down after testing was completed.

Solar 2: A re-design and remodel of the Solar 1 CSP Tower Plant completed in 1995.
Implementing new engineering & design, increased heliostat array & using Molten Salt for
heat storage. This allowed for power generation during cloudy periods & even into the night.
Like Solar 1, it was successful and closed after testing was completed.

Solar Tres: An improved 11 Megawatt CSP Tower Plant designed off of the Solar 2 facility.
The initial designs were made & cost estimated for the Daggett, CA area. But in the end, the
design was bought, re-designed & is proposed to be built in Seville, Spain at a dramatically
increased price.

Heliostat: A device mounted to a fixed point that is designed to track the Sun as it travels
through the sky. The device can move on a single axis (such as left to right) or double axis
(such as left to right & up to down) depending on design. In our case, the Heliostat it is
either mounted with a large mirror (to reflect the sun to a desired focal point) or a PV array
(to give the array optimal Solar Exposure at all times of day).
xv

GhG(s): Greenhouse Gasses, including but not limited to Water Vapor, CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, O
3

and CFC’s. These gasses all contribute to the “Greenhouse Effect”, which is the process
that creates a “greenhouse” like layer around the earth and traps heat that enters from the
sun. Since the industrialization of mankind, these gasses have been produced in excess,
causing an excess of GhG’s that amplify the Greenhouse Effect, causing the Earth’s
atmosphere the heat prematurely

CO
2
: Carbon Dioxide, a greenhouse gas. In this case, the CO
2
emitted during the burning
of fuels to create electricity. Below are the rates of CO
2
pollution for 3 major fossil fuels
taken from the DOE “How does electricity affect the Environment” website.
Natural Gas: 1.135 pounds of CO
2
per mWh
Oil: 1.672 pounds of CO
2
per mWh
Coal: 2.249 pounds of CO
2
per mWh
xvi

Abstract
The ability for the common citizen to invest into renewable resources is limited in today’s
market. “Being Green” is on everyone’s mind in the United States, but only those who have
money can afford to be “green”. In Los Angeles, 51% rent. Even if a consumer had the
money, they couldn’t install solar panels because they don’t own their home. The thesis
concept is to offer new sources of “green” investment that apply to broader demographics.
The new investment option proposed is to offer PV solar panels which are installed at an
isolated, centralized facility, as opposed to being installed on local rooftops. This concept
achieves higher electricity generation for the same price. Furthermore, concentrated solar
power facilities offer even higher generation for half the cost of these PV facilities. Finally,
the study reviews how upgrading building efficiencies through construction can, in some
cases, be cheaper than both concepts.
1

Chapter 1: Introduction
Reducing Pollution: America’s Point of View
One of the primary causes of the energy crisis today is the lack of environmental
responsibility given to the consumer. It is only recently that the notions of “Being Green”
have become popular. In the United States, the problem stems from the late hour in which
the country as a whole started to see “being green” as a good thing to do. Another major
problem is the lack of practical and affordable green choices for the common person. This,
combined with the lack of basic education on the subject itself has led to a series of
problems that pose a threat of disillusionment in the future. The author, as a member of the
younger generation, has an education in renewable and green practice only because he
sought it out in higher education. The public education system had little involvement in
preparing the author’s generation with the basic education necessary to understand what
“being green” really means. This lack of basic education, combined with the current
bombardment of “Greenwashing” may have left a detrimental effect on the renewable
movement. The shallow effects of Greenwashing may be seen in the future, when the public
is left disillusioned because they thought they were excelling, but in fact their efforts were in
the wrong place. Greenwashing is the act of marketing an item as “Green” when it actually
has minimal reductions on environmental impact. In the author’s opinion, if the public thinks
they are making a difference now, than 5-10 years from now when nothing much has
changed, they will feel jaded and may turn a cold shoulder to renewable practices.
Even beyond this, people are looking for renewable solutions and instead of hearing
“reduce, reuse, and recycle”; they are receiving answers that are in most cases very
expensive. This is because people in the United States will pay for answers that don’t affect
2

their daily life or conveniences. So these problems are not being met with rational and real
solutions like reduce, recycle and reuse. The problems are being met with profit and
marketing. The result is a state of mystery about which “green” choices really affect the
world we live in. The options that affect us the most can often be free, but the market tells
you otherwise in order to sell their product. If the public switched from paying more for
green, to refusing to pay for non-green, that would make an incredible impact.
When the current buyers market is flooded with environmentally under-designed
homes and dramatically overdesigned water bottles, there is little reason to wonder why
there is such confusion. People are buying environmentally friendly cars because they have
the word “hybrid” under the logo, but they are still drinking imported bottles of water. They
understand that the car is saving oil because that is what is publicized. What the common
public does not know is that each 16 ounce bottle of water takes an average of 4 ounces of
oil to transport it from the source to their hand (Pacific_Institute, 2008). At that rate, if a
person drinks their recommended 64oz of water daily from the bottle, they will have
consumed 16oz of oil. In 8 days that person will have consumed 1 gallon of oil by drinking
water. That figure does not include the impact of manufacturing the bottle and the impact of
waste disposal. Per year America consumes 714 million gallons of oil on bottled water.
Those bottles in total also produced 2.5 million tons of CO2 due to the manufacturing
process. If bottles were recycled, and water was purchased locally then American oil
consumption and pollution would be reduced. But instead of looking for cheaper solutions
that require sacrifice, the consumer searches out expensive solutions that look better.
We are depleting the Earth’s resources and polluting our land and seas at alarming
rates. It will only get worse when people find out they have really done nothing to stop it,
even though they thought they were. In the author’s opinion, the lack of renewable choices
is directly proportional to the public’s lack of understanding the results of their actions. If
3

people knew the effects of their choices, they would demand more options. Since the
education is not present, and neither are the options there is little sense of responsibility.
People have moved into a policy of fashion where they will pay more to look good than they
will do to be good. But it is not entirely their fault. The options given to the consumer are not
judged and decided upon based on their environmental impact, but it on their “flash” and
social status that we are learning to judge. The United Nations had been researching
“green” since the 1970’s, but until recently the whole issue was ignored in American popular
culture. It was not until Al Gore released his 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that the
public decided they are now interested in saving the Earth (Guggenheim, 2006). “An
Inconvenient Truth” won 2 Oscars and sparked a “Green Nuevo” movement in America.
Hollywood also reacted with a new urge in upcoming actors and musicians to join in and
save the Earth. Of course, musicians have been singing of the issue and actors like Ed
Bagley Jr. have been pushing the ideas for over a decade, but they were a small pebble
relative to this current avalanche. Even with all of the press and concern of this crisis, it is
still looked upon as a fourth hand issue in the political ring. In the current 2008 Presidential
Primary Election, CNN.com has top “Issues” in which the candidates give their opinions and
the voters look to for their decisions. Issues such as illegal immigration and same sex
marriage top the charts, while environment does not make the list (CNN, 2008). The future
of our environment is based on the ability for every citizen to understand their impact on the
Earth.

Reducing Pollution: Where is the biggest impact?
Today’s energy market is dominated by fossil fuels which create dramatic impacts
on the world environment. The electricity provided to America’s homes is creating the
4

largest impact on our land, but it is not even discussed. Cars are on the nation’s mind, when
they are evolving while buildings stand still. The public needs to understand the major
source of pollution is not from oil, but from their use of electricity. Since it has been a hidden
issue to the popular public for so long, little has been done to change things. There are
major changes that can reduce power consumption by over 50% just waiting to be instituted.
It will be the biggest monster in the fight against pollution. Coal power has produced 83% of
the CO
2
pollution since 1990 according to the Department of Energy.
“Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants
spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides
every year.
4
Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury
pollution
5
, largest contributor of hazardous air toxics
6
, and release about 50% of
particle pollution.
7
Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming” (Sierra_Club, 2008)

In America, 50% of our electricity is generated by coal power. That coal-fired electricity
produces 80% of the total CO
2
electricity generation related emissions. That means all other
sources combined; oil, nuclear and all other forms only produce 1/4 the amount of pollution
of coal. Outside of electricity, coal-fired energy accounts for 35% of all the greenhouse gas
pollution created in America. Annually the nation produces 5,877 Million Metric Tons of CO
2

(MMTCO
2
) and coal accounts for 2,121 MMTCO
2
of that total. Compared to all other fossil
fuels, coal emits the largest amount of CO
2
per unit of Energy it creates.
According to the DOE’s findings on Electricity Generation Technologies, if we were
to reduce our consumption of Coal by 10%, it would be like reducing our use of oil by 13.4%
(EPA, 2007). Oil is an important factor in reducing emissions, but research has shown that it
is currently is being reduced at “moderately” acceptable rates. In fact, the transportation
industry is based on vehicle evolution. The automotive industry exists in a constant state of
renewal. For each generation of vehicles that is produced, another generation of vehicles is
being destroyed. The average lifespan of a car is 13.5 years. This means, due to internal
5

competition the emission standards of vehicles raise at a fairly progressive speed. A 2007
Honda Civic (non-hybrid) runs at 25 to 36 mpg, while a 1994 Honda Civic runs at 23 to 30
mpg (DOE & EPA, 2008). That is a 20% improvement on emissions over the lifespan of a
car. If you take the new hybrid generation into account, some automakers have efficiency
improvements that skyrocket beyond 20%.
Coal fired Power plants do not have the same renewal of life that vehicles have.
According to the PEW Center for Global Climate Change, 1/3 of all US Coal plants were built
from 1970 or earlier. This was due to energy legislation passed in 1970 that forced
regulations on new coal-fired power plants. If a plant was built before the act passed, then it
was exempt from these rules. Most of the remaining plants were built from 1970-1989, and
only 12 constructed from 1990 and on. Almost half of the existing Coal fired plants have
seen nearly 3 generations of vehicles pass by (13.5 years per generation x 2.75 = 37 years).
A 1968 Ford Mustang would get 6 to 8 mpg; a 2008 Ford Mustang gets 24 to 26 mpg. That
is a total improvement of 325% over 40 years. Half of our current Electricity source is
running on technologies developed before the first Honda was invented in 1972. Even with
upgrades these Coal plants cannot compete with the constant evolution of the automotive
industry. That is why the focus of the consumer’s reduction on pollution needs to broaden
from oil and start looking at coal as our most dangerous natural resource.

Reducing Pollution: The Next Step
So the question is how does the consumer reduce their coal consumption? The
primary methods still lie in conservation techniques. Reduce, recycle and re-use. The
second item on that list, recycling, has taken on a relatively important “popular” role in the
United States recently. Because the word can be marketed and sold, it is plastered on
6

everything no matter how much of the content is actually “recycled”. In America, recycling is
accomplished if you hire someone to do it for you. Even to the point where before the trash
is taken to the dump, it is taken to a facility and recyclable materials are handpicked out of
the pile. In our country this is “easier” than separating the materials at the source, using
your own hands. Reduction of materials is the most difficult of requests in our culture. The
trends have been set on a standard of “newer, bigger, better”. Under that notion, we use
more materials and more often. To help people feel better, they buy partially recycled
materials and say it made their new 3,000 square foot addition “green”, even though it
consumed tons of fresh, new materials to build. It is also socially looked down upon to re-
use products. Every lower to middle class child growing up in America knows the
schoolyard shame of wearing “hand me down’s”. So from a young age, Americans are
raised that the notion of using old stuff is for those who can’t afford anything better.
To be successful in this culture, people look to spending money to solve their
problems. This mentality may be the biggest problem, but it cannot be solved overnight, or
anytime soon for that matter. A new intermediate solution needs to be proposed to help
America ease into a new, renewable generation. New methods of investing in “Green” need
to be developed if we are to reduce our major sources of pollution, coal-fired power plants.
A Carbon Footprint is the amount of carbon produced through the daily activities of an entity.
The entity can be a person, company, building, county or even the world as a whole. The
carbon produced through daily activities can be from the car you drive, to the amount of
electricity you use, to the products you buy. Currently it is nearly impossible for a person of
to be carbon neutral, or even anything close to it. It is in fact very difficult for an average
person to do almost anything about their Carbon Footprint outside of small, minor
alterations. A combination of income levels and living situations limit the options.
7

A Compact Fluorescent (CFL) bulb is an excellent way to reduce electricity use in
lighting by 60%. Lighting though is not the largest source of power use in a home.
Appliances such as refrigerators and HVAC units consume higher amounts of electricity on
daily, normal operation. Unfortunately, buying CFL light bulbs is already reaching the limit of
what an average citizen is capable of contributing. All other products are outside of their
financial or physical means. In Los Angeles, this is mainly due to high rent / mortgage prices
that are over the 1/3 national average of rent to income. The financial state of the average
citizen does not match the high cost of the profit driven “Green” market that has developed in
the recent years. Even the world “Green” has built value. Any product with the word labeled
across the front has become increasingly more expensive. Additionally, these new products
are designed to be sold as brand new replacements for the old inefficient ones. While
sounding like a great plan to eliminate the old and bring in the new, it leaves no room for
lower income citizens to upgrade their current products. The lower and middle class are left
with few means to change their lifestyle. This demographic have a strong history of saving
money by choosing to do self improvements themselves. By modifying their existing
surroundings they strive to improve their life. The ability to simply replace old products and
purchase new ones is a luxury most people cannot afford.
This suggests that another approach to a new green movement is to offer ways to
invest your money moderately in alternative means. Installing a whole solar array on a roof
is a luxury of the higher class. Installing 1 solar panel at a time would be a moderate
investment of the middle class. Unfortunately, installing 1 panel at a time does not work in
an efficient means. And for most middle class, they rent and don’t “own” their roof. A Solar
Power Plant offers a unique opportunity to supply this alternative source of investment. The
basic design of a Solar Power Plant is to install multiple Solar Arrays in a remote location.
Each Solar Array generates a small amount of electricity and when combined creates a
8

significant amount of power as a whole. If a Solar Power Plant was developed and each
Solar Array was sold to a buyer, like a “share” in the stock market, you could offer a new
form of being “Green”. This offers the public a way to invest the ability to generate “carbon
neutral” electricity. A consumer can invest in large sums, or in moderate amounts. The
ability to generate power can be bought at partial consumption, total consumption, or even
beyond the consumer’s personal power needs. The concept allows a person to invest into
power as a way to make money. This concept could be implemented into the LEED system,
ASHRAE or Title 24 standards that address energy use in building construction. The system
could also be used in a similar way to “carbon offsets”. Though this is not an ideal
methodology, it would reward the creation of new, alternative power as opposed to awarding
existing sources. Carbon Offsetting is looked down upon for rewarding the trade of credits
from existing power sources, or even forests that can sell their carbon credits. To get a good
understanding at some of the more absurd principals of carbon offsetting, visit the webpage
www.cheatneutral.com (CheatNeutral, 2008).
It is important for the consumer to understand what they are buying. The smoke and
mirrors used to Greenwash items has made the market confusing. This concept of being
able to purchase a specific amount of renewable energy generation capability is a direct and
tangible method to invest in “Green”. If the consumer purchases a 200 watt “share” of power
generation, then they will receive 200 watts hours of clean electricity. The monthly bill has a
total electricity use, subtracted by 200 watt hours, resulting in a lowered coal-fired electricity
usage. It is very straight forward and easy to understand. By allowing the average
consumer alternative ways to invest in “green”, they can start to understand what it means to
reduce their carbon footprint. If the consumer doesn’t understand the problem, how can they
understand the solution? When the consumer has new options in green investment, ranging
from refrigerators to solar panels, they will start to understand their energy consumption. By
9

seeing the effects of their decisions on energy bills, they will inherently start to understand
how reducing their energy needs will affect their lives.

Thesis Synopsis
The following thesis will discuss the history of power generation in the United States.
This will give a background and understanding leading us up to today’s energy market. The
study will then focus mainly on the Los Angeles and greater Southern California area. It will
address legislation as well as renewable energy programs that are currently available
through some local Utilities. Following this, a study of small scale PV will determine the
base case scenario for Solar Power in Los Angeles and Southern California. Then, existing
large scale solar projects will be done to establish what alternatives are available in the
market. After an analysis of current renewable energy projects and technologies, a case
study will be performed. This will take an existing population, Catalina Island, and propose 3
alternative methods of supplying solar power. The three types are Local PV, Large Scale
PV facility & Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) facility. This case study concludes that Local
PV is the highest financial investment, but lowest environmental impact. The CSP plant
proves to be the lowest cost, but highest environmental impact. In all 3 scenarios, the cost is
put in terms relative to the residents. By estimating solar power for the island as “$ per
household”, further studies concerning building upgrades can be made. Building simulation
software, HEED, will analyze the energy consumption of different building designs, and
provide an optimal design that allows for minimal environmental impact. The upgrades given
will then be referenced to the “per household” cost of the solar installations. It will give a
tangible scale to help estimate if building remodels will be cheaper and more efficient than
the proposed solar concepts.
10

Chapter 2: Existing Energy Structure
Chapter 2 will review the existing energy structure in America, and focus in on the
history of Energy Legislation in the United States. From there, it continues onto the history
of Energy legislation in California. Coming to the conclusion that current laws, new funding
and increased political / public interest are pointing to a dramatic increase in the renewable
market. The Renewable boom is driven by three factors: federal funding, social conscience
and the investors looking to make money off the federal funding and social conscience. The
next concept to review is the relationship of Energy Generation and Energy Supply. Energy
Generation: the Power Plants generating power sold to the Energy Supplier. Energy Supply:
the Utilities buying the power from the Energy Generator and selling the energy to the
consumer. The cause and effects of deregulation will show how the market changed,
leaving the future of energy in the hands of today’s public and political interests. This leads
to the current push for renewable energy funded initially by the federal, state and utilities with
the hopes that private investments will follow.

Chapter 3: Existing Renewable Energy
Chapter 3 will review the Energy Mix and Renewable Energy currently used by
multiple Utilities located in California. It will also discuss the options offered to consumers to
request renewable energy for their household or business. LADWP offers the “Green Power
Program” which is a renewable energy option offered to the consumer. A renewable energy
option means that if the consumer requests it, the Utility will contract energy from a
Renewable Source, for the amount the consumer requests. This option is offered by some
Utilities, like LADWP and SMUD, but not all. This program works by using a method the
author calls “power offsetting”. This method refers to the fact that the renewable power
11

probably never reaches the consumer who optioned for it. But instead, the renewable
energy supplies the consumer closest to it. But by inputting it into the grid, the power is
theoretically “offset” until it reaching the consumer who optioned for it.

Chapter 4: Los Angeles Population & Being “Green”
Chapter 4 will review the demographics of Los Angeles, in reference to income and
living situations. By studying the demographics you can determine which current renewable
options are financially and physically available for the general population. Through a
process of elimination it is concluded that for 51% of the population there is little to no way to
be “Green” in Los Angeles. This means that the average citizen has few existing options in
the reduction of their Carbon Footprint. The chapter will then look into incentives and credits
offered in California, focusing the LADWP district. Using examples of current installations
being financed by major companies like Chevron, but installed on Los Angeles Community
Colleges it is determined that there is a market for financial investment.

Chapter 5: Solar Power
Chapter 5 will review the history of solar power and the current technologies that are
the focus of this thesis proposal. It will go into detail on specific Concentrated Solar Power
(CSP) Tower and Parabolic Trough projects and Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Power projects,
comparing benefits and drawbacks to each design. The bulk of the chapter takes 6 different
case studies: 4 CSP Tower projects, 1 CSP parabolic trough and 1 Large Scale PV facility.
The study compares each project and comes up with typical installation costs, installation
12

sizes and all pertinent information for running a real life scenario case study. This is the
platform for the Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 Catalina case study.

Chapter 6: Power to the People
Chapter 6 will review the data from the previous chapters and their relationship to
the average Los Angeles citizen. It will sun a synopsis and come up with conclusions based
on the data. Chapter 6 will then build off these conclusions to propose the Chapter 7 & 8
Catalina Case Study.

Chapter 7: Catalina Case Study: Existing Infrastructure & Renewable Proposal
Chapter 7 will review the existing demographics and infrastructure of Catalina
Island, focusing mainly on Avalon. Avalon is the only incorporated city on the island, and it
uses 89.6% of the total electricity. The research will look through the islands power
distribution system, as well as the existing power generation. This will also review the water
usage statistics because the island uses a desalination plant to supply over 40% of its
potable water. Since the plant uses electricity to operate, it is an important part of the
energy consumption analysis. It is found that the current power is supplied through Diesel
generators. The desalination plant is discovered to operate at half the efficiency of modern
desalination plants. The chapter also addresses the wind conditions and weather conditions
of the island. Even though wind is not studied in this thesis, it is an important resource that
can be simulated in future studies.

13

Chapter 8: Catalina Case Study: Energy Review & Cost to the Consumer
Chapter 8 will review the cost of installing enough Local PV systems to supply power
to the entire island. The financial cost is given in two terms, firstly the total cost, and
secondly the cost per household. Since Catalina has a specific number of households, it
can be determined how much money each household would need to invest in order to
supply 100% renewable Solar Power for the island. The next study “installs” a large scale
PV facility. The final study “installs” a CSP facility. The findings result in the financial
advantages of CSP plants, but the environmental advantages of Local PV installations. A
final study addresses the concept of recycling the heliostat field of the Solar Two facility in
Daggett, CA and using it on Catalina. The final results in this chapter conclude that a CSP
facility is the best option for Catalina Island. The following chapter uses building simulations
to question exactly what is the “most efficient” means of reducing pollution.

Chapter 8: Energy Modeling Software
Chapter 8 will look at energy modeling software to show the impact of existing
construction techniques on the environment. Using the software to model efficient
construction methods, it will show that on an island the size of Catalina there could have its
current total energy consumption, electricity and gas, reduced by over 50%. It also
concludes that efficient upgrades can reduce electricity consumption by over 70%. It also
finds that if all buildings had been built with energy efficient means, then PV would be
financially a better investment than CSP. This reverses the previous findings. The chapter
also questions how much remodeling could be done compared to the “per household” costs
of the previous chapter’s conclusions.
14

Chapter 10: Conclusion
Chapter 10 starts by giving a synopsis of all the conclusions made so far. Using the
findings from the previous chapters, it is concluded that a CSP plant would be the best
option for creating a new form of green investment. Even though the CSP study shows a
higher potential for environmental damages, it is half the price of PV. This makes it more
competitive with big coal, and also offers faster returns on investments. Additionally, it
allows a consumer with lower annual income more opportunity to invest in green. Since this
whole thesis was created around the idea of providing cheaper renewable options, this stood
out as the most important figure. While it may suffer some drawbacks, it will offer higher
returns on investment and therefore be more attractive to a wider range of investor. The
study concludes by giving the cost per watt that can be used for the sale of the system. The
opportunities for investment are discussed in greater detail. The chapter ends with ideas for
future study, including: a Wind Plant option, reviewing the CSP facility with actual CSP
engineers to get a true feasibility study, talking to people with energy legislation experience,
talking to venture capitalists to get further insight, Installing a new receiver and engineered
system at the Solar Two facility to bring it online, and other ideas.

15

Chapter 2: Existing Energy Structure – United States
The following information pertaining to the Public Utility Holding Company (PUHC)
Act of 1935 comes primarily from the 1993 Energy Information Administration (EIA) Report
on the subject (DOE & EIA, 1993). After the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and the following
Great Depression, America faced its need for Energy reform. The existing Federal Power
Act of 1920 was no longer sufficient, and it was being exploited by the existing Utility Holding
Companies. Samuel Insull was the major contributing force to this reform. His holdings of
Utility and Railroad companies in 30 states, controlling over 5,300 communities, made him
the first Utility Holding Company, but he was more of a “Utility Holding Empire”. Due to his
highly-leveraged investment structure, insider trading and numerous illegal actions, all of his
holdings collapsed in the Great Depression. This resulted with a once $500 million empire,
collapsing into to bankruptcy with an astounding negative $177 million (total loss of $677
million) & over 600,000 shareholders ruined. To prevent this from happening again, in 1935
the first law was put into place to regulate the generation and sale of power in the United
States. The “Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935”, or PUHCA, was established to
define the role of the generation and utility companies, as well as set guidelines for power to
be created, sold and supplied to the consumer. There were 6 main reasons for its creation.
First it allowed for subsidiaries and smaller companies to incorporate into a larger entity,
which allowed the PUHC to be regulated by Government and State Laws as a single entity.
It also meant the PUHC could use its subsidiaries to pull in joint taxes and also create joint
public works projects, to better the community they served. Secondly, during the time of
creation, in the 1920’s and 1930’s many of the smaller companies were family owned and
stocks were held by single people. The act allowed the PUHC to control the company, and
in case of death of a major stockholder, continue to run the company without any significant
setbacks. Without this, the loss of a major stockholder could put the company into turmoil
16

and cause power loss to the consumer. Thirdly, the control, or majority shares, of
subsidiaries could be bought at minimal outlay of capital. This worked as a “pyramid”
structure, where the subsidiaries were controlled by higher companies, until you reach the
top control. This leverage system allowed for incorporation of several companies without
having to purchase the entire company.
Advocates of this leveraging system claimed there were benefits from pyramiding for
utility customers in that this pyramiding “facilitated the development of large scale
operations such as have played so considerable a part in decreasing production
costs in the United States.” (DOE & EIA, 1993)

This was because the smaller companies are now able to standardize, upgrade
equipment, and interchange technology, all with an easier system of financing. Without
being part of a PUHC, the subsidiaries would not have been able to accomplish these goals.
All of which led to a more consistent and higher quality supply of energy to the consumer.
Fourth, the costs of obtaining capital and financing projects have been reduced due to the
size of the PUHC and the increased technical expertise of its employees. Fifth is the ability
for technical service to be provided to all subsidiaries. The ability to eliminate several small
technical operations for one large company program reduced wasted and increased
performance. And finally, the sixth reason was better services were created due to the
broadening service of product. With the large company, the service market was allowed to
grow and invest back into the PUHC.
The existing PUHC were ridden with corruption and abuse of the laws set up in
1920. The EIA report on the PUHCA of 1935 lists the following issues as the major
contributors to reform: Difficulty in regulation, Abuses of the Holding Company structure,
Write-up of Securities and Inflation of Capital Assets, Intercompany financial practices and
transactions, excessive fees and services, and finally the competition for control of strategic
Operating Companies. The reason for Utility Holding Company growth before the Act of
17

1935 was the lack of regulation. To reform the Energy Structure, the Act of 1935 set into
place a series of Provisions. Registration of Holding Companies and their employees along
with financial evaluations of the company and copies of all deals and transactions were
required. Secondly the company needed to explain any bonus and profit sharing
agreements. Thirdly, divulge the provisions of any contract for materials, service or
construction. Finally they were forced to present consolidated balance sheets and
comparable information. These rules, along with others in the act, were designed to expose
the workings of the company and prevent hidden deals and illegal actions from happening
behind closed doors. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was put into control
of the administration of the Act. Therefore the control of the SEC was broadened to any
electrical and gas utility holding company. The new regulations were challenged constantly
after the act was passed, but with the Supreme Court’s judgment that the Act was
Constitutional, reform began to make way. By 1950 virtually all Utility Holding Companies
had undergone reform and the affects of the Act of 1935 were complete.
The next major steps in reform did not take place until the creation of the Public
Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978. The need for this reform was due to the
new energy sources being supplied from foreign sources, which increased competition for
energy generation. The act was developed to respond to the oil crisis in the 1970’s by
increasing the national ability to be self sufficient in the production of fuels and generation of
electricity. This allowed for new forms of competition to arise among smaller energy
producers. It fueled the need for alternative energy sources such as co-generation plants
and other renewable sources. The purpose of PURPA became to force the Utility
companies to purchase power from co-generation facilities or renewable sources if they
could produce it at competitive rates. The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC)
was put in charge of administering these reforms. FERC was to determine which
18

cogeneration and renewable sources were Qualifying Facilities (QF) and would be protected
under PURPA. These QF were therefore made exempt from the regulations set forth by the
PUHC Act of 1935. The after affect of this regulation was the increase in Independent
Generation Facilities and decrease of Utility Company created Generation Facilities. This
was due to the amount of review the Utility Company would have to endure due to PUHCA.
It became not only easier to purchase power from outside sources, but the competition
increased efficiency and decreased prices. During this period, the Utilities were purchasing
power from outside QF suppliers based on theoretical prices set by the “projected cost” of
the Utility building its own power plant. If the price of power from a “projected plant” was
lower than the QF, then they did not have to buy the power.
By the end of the 1980’s the alternative sources of energy had exhausted
themselves, reaching a saturation point. At this time the “proposed plant” pricing concept
was abolished and competitive bidding for power sales began to take place. In 1989 the
Johnston Bill was introduced which would have established the Competitive Wholesale
Electric Generation Act of 1989. This would have been an amendment to PUHCA, allowing
for the diversification of independent power production by holding companies, and allowing
non-utilities to enter the market without the barriers and restrictions of PUHCA. One of the
largest oppositions to the Johnston Bill was the debate over jurisdiction. One of the
provisions of the bill was the creation of Exempt Wholesale Generators (EWG) who could
produce energy outside of the PUHCA restrictions. These facilities would be able to merge,
creating a Holding Company which would be exempt from PUHCA. Another possibility
would be for and existing Holding Company to buy all EWG’s and therefore make itself
exempt from PUHCA. In order to control these issues, it was the opinion of FERC that they
would need to implement Jurisdiction control over the Holding Companies. This would allow
them to review their actions on a national scale. This raised concerns that the erosion of
19

State control on the regulation of the Utilities would transpire because National control would
be put into FERC. But, it was the opinion of the Department of Energy (DOE) that the bill
itself would not have eroded State control of power, but instead put control of power in the
States hands. At the time, the DOE stated:
“it is by no means clear that PUHCA amendment would erode State authority over
utilities in favor of regulation by FERC. Rather, it would enable—but not require—a
rearrangement that would leave many critical functions in State hands. In particular,
the basic choices of how best to meet long term electric supply needs for retail sales
would remain in the hands of the State and the utilities under its jurisdiction.” (DOE
& EIA, 1993)

Though the act was not passed, it raised a series of important issues and became
the framework for the PUHCA Reform provisions which were implemented by the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). The main concerns of allowing Independent Power Providers
(IPP) to have control of the energy generation were: Operation Reliability, Overreliance on a
Single Fuel (for instance, a small gas power plant going bankrupt if fuel prices change
drastically), Impairment of Obligation to Serve (Since IPPs are exempt from PUHCA, they do
not have to provide reliable Base Load services), Start Up Reliability (IPPs may not advance
beyond the state of construction), Financial Reliability (would not survive recessions),
System Reliability, Self Dealings and Cross Subsidization, and finally Transmission Access
(the ability for IPPs to use other IPPs and or Utility Company power lines in order to
eliminate redundancies by competing power lines to one location). EPACT addressed these
issues and came to a conclusion that Utilities were free to choose if they were to purchase
from outside sources in a competitive market, or build their own power plants, on basis of
cost. The DOE concluded that PUHCA reform:
“will help develop electric supplies and stimulate competitive market efficiencies
which are not available under the traditional single supplier approach. Over the long
term, the modification of PUHCA is expected to have a powerful effect on the
efficiency of the Nation’s energy markets.” (DOE & EIA, 1993)
20

The intention of EPACT was to interfere as little as possible with the purchase of
power, and allow the market to set prices while FERC would act as a “watchdog” on
regulations. The key issues of market forces driving prices down and pushing technology
and advancement through market competition pushed the bill through. Additionally there
were added provisions for State and Federal reviews and oversight committees to help
protect the consumer. By adding these safeguards, the new EPACT was accepted by those
who originally rejected the Johnston Legislation. But due to introduction of several other
Energy Bills to congress, it became apparent that EPACT of 1992 was missing key
components, therefore it was not passed. Bills dealing with issues such as Arctic Drilling in
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards
(CAFE), Conservation Issues, Renewable energy resources, Building Efficiency, Gasoline
Taxes and expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). All of these issues were
not addressed in that version of EPACT, and led to a major step back and refocus in the
direction this Energy Act was going to take in the future in order to be passed.
In 2005 EPACT was passed, rendering PUHCA obsolete and starting a new
direction for the Energy Market. This was the first major Energy Reform to take place since
1935. The longevity of PUHCA had been due to its success and also the fear of operating
without it. Inherently with a system that was created such a long time ago, with minimal
amendments or reform, there were flaws in that led to problems in the future. Serious issues
of corruption arose again in the late 1990’s, similar to the corruption that caused the creation
of PUHCA in the first place. With the progress of technology and the increasing changes
created by State lawmakers, ignorance, confusion and lack of regulation allowed for extreme
exploitation of both the Utilities and the consumer. As a response to these issues, The
EPACT of 2005 puts FERC strongly in charge of regulation over the power companies, as
discussed earlier. They were allowed National regulation, while still allowing State
21

Government to have control of their Power purchasing. There are three major goals outline
by FERC in response to the Act:
(1) it reaffirmed a commitment to competition in wholesale power markets as
national policy, the third major federal law in the last 30 years to do so; (2) it
strengthened the Commission’s regulatory tools, recognizing that effective regulation
is necessary to protect the consumer from exploitation and assure fair competition;
and (3) it provided for development of a stronger energy infrastructure. (FERC,
2006)

Along with the new Energy Regulations, there are numerous additions concerning
Renewable Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Pollution, Advancement of clean air
technologies for Fossil Fuels, The increase of National storage of Fossil Fuels, and many
other issues that had been left out of the 1992 draft. The purpose of the current Act is to
push our Energy dependencies to cleaner, more efficient and renewable resources. At the
same time the Act leaves in provisions that allow for Fossil Fuels to still be used, but at
higher efficiencies and lower pollution rates. This is to allow for consistent Energy sources
based on existing infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, one of the large fears among new
forms of power is their reliability to perform and supply a minimal Base Power Load. It is a
long term approach to confronting our Nations Energy challenges in a “balanced,
comprehensive and environmentally sensitive way” (DOE, 2006). This Act, combined with
the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) of 2007 and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI)
of 2006 provide tremendous resources for growth in the Renewable Energy market. This
comes from the financial and technological support given by the ACI & AEI, but it is driven by
the focus of EPACT to create a diversified energy portfolio. This means that the goals of
EPACT are to have our nation’s Energy split evenly among Resources, which opens a
tremendous perspective for growth in the Renewable Market. That combined with calls to
upgrade the efficiency of our current energy supply infrastructure will lead to more financially
viable options for Renewable Resources without suffering high Transmission losses.
22

Our Nation is currently at an apex of change. The updated EPACT along with ACI &
AEI has set up a platform for incredible growth. This growth is pointing straight to the
renewable energy sources, such as Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Hydro. These are all
untapped resources when examined in relative scales. If this Nation is to have a “balanced”
and “diversified” energy portfolio, that means drastic reductions in our current Coal Powered
energy supply of 50% and Natural Gas Supplying 30%. Currently in Southern California only
7%-10% of our energy is from Renewable Sources. To create a diverse Energy Portfolio,
Green Energy will need to grow nearly 30%-40%. Another supporting factor in this growth is
the movement to create a “Distributed” Energy system, in which homes, towns and cities will
have a percentage of power supplied locally, instead of being sent from power plants
thousands of miles away. With this future Renewable Power growth, and future technology
increases in the Renewable sector, hopefully government funding and private investments
will follow. The underlying goal behind the ACI and AEI is to invigorate private spending in
renewable energy. The concept of being able to run as a self sufficient nation without having
to rely on foreign means of power is powered by our nation investing in renewable and local
energy sources.

Environmental Law: National & California
The energy market, specifically the Utility companies and Energy Producers, came
under scrutiny in the early 1970’s as a byproduct of an Act designed to put checks and
balances on government projects. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was
passed. The Act was made in response to highways and freeways being built, destroying
neighborhoods and local ecologies. The new policy was designed for promoting the
environment and subsequently led to the establishment of environmental impact reports on
23

major Government Public Works projects. The impact on the Energy market took place
when new Power Generation projects were proposed. Each project had to undergo
Environmental Impact Reports, which is a review of the immediate and long-term effects of
the project, combined with alternative options as comparison models. From this point on all
new coal, methane, oil and natural gas projects had to be reviewed by NEPA as well as
public review. This meant that companies could no longer mine and or build without
substantial review and in most cases, opposition from the public. This was one effect that
slowed down the process. In California the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
placed additional requirements on government projects, as well as almost any public or
private project.
The next National Environmental impact plan was the Clean Air Act of 1970. Built
from the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, the Clean Air Act of 1963 & Air Quality Act of
1967, this act put strong new restrictions on the pollution and efficiency standards of Power
Plants. This act also included a grandfather “loophole” which allowed for older, existing coal
fired power plants to operate outside of these new restrictions. This resulted in the near
extinction of new coal fired plants. Since this act has passed, less than 20 Coal Fire power
plants have been built. It is cheaper and easier to operate, upgrade and expand existing
plants and produce Energy outside of the CAA’s restrictions. Since conception, the act has
undergone two amendments in 1977 and 1990 which granted it increasing power and control
over National Pollution. As a result of the loophole created by the act, combined with a lack
of regulation:
“older coal-fired power plants have sidestepped the new source review provision
and have illegally avoided installing modern pollution controls. As a result, today
most existing power plants are between 30-50 years old and are up to 10 times
dirtier than new power plants.” (Sierra_Club, 2008)

24

Under current law existing power plants still operate under relaxed standards
compared to the newer plants. A simple way to look at it is this; a power plant built before
1970 undergoes extremely low regulation compared to a power plant built after 1970. The
fact that coal plants do not willingly update their equipment, at great cost, makes any
competition at an immediate disadvantage in a cost driven market. According to a
conversation with Jeff Goodell, writer of “Big Coal”, in order to create clean coal facilities the
old coal plants would have to be completely demolished. You cannot update existing, older
facilities to achieve future coal standards. In addition, to create clean coal power plants, he
said that the price of power would double. That would make Clean Coal and Nuclear power
equal competition in the open market’s eyes. So even new coal plants cannot compete with
existing coal plants. Currently 61% of the 121 proposed coal power plants (permitted, near,
and or under construction), which will provide 71,680 mW of power, are proposed to be
conventional CFB or PC Sub-Critical Power Plants. These two types of Coal burning power
sources operate at lower efficiencies and produce higher amounts of Green House Gas and
toxin outputs, compared to IGCC or Supercritical Coal burning power. (DOE & NETL's
OSPA, 2007). In addition, these conventional style plants do not allow for conversion to
“Clean Coal” practices.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the operation of public
and privately owned Utility companies in the state. They also enforce the rules set up under
CEQA to provide environmental impact data. The CUPC was first created in 1911 as a
constitutional amendment to create the Railroad Commission. The Public Utilities Act of
1912 expanded the commission to include regulation of natural gas, electric, telephone,
water companies, railroads and marine transportation.
Transportation Pollution was also a major concern in the late 1960’s. When the
Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted, it set up the framework for defining “air quality
25

control regions”. It also allowed California a waiver to create a progressive institution which
implemented more stringent vehicle standards due to the unique “car” culture. The Air
Resources Board (ARB) was created in 1967, merging the California Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Board with the Bureau of Air Sanitation (ARB, 2008). By 1969 new standards of air
pollution control were enacted and resulted in a dramatic reduction of particles in California’s
atmosphere. These are not limited to CO
2
; they include all forms of air pollution as well as
soil and water pollution by, most direct to the point, regulating dumping of waste materials.
But the overall regulations that were placed on vehicles caused a reduction in all forms of
pollution from refinement to end use. By 1970 though, the Federal Government amended
the Federal Air Quality Act and took control of vehicle pollution on a National level. Though
Air Quality was controlled on a national level, the ARB continued to create new regulations
to reduce the pollution in California. It also has led to country in the movement to more
efficient vehicles, pollution reduction, Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Catalytic Converters and
“Smog Checks” and other common practices which are national laws today. Cleaner
Burning Gasoline alone reduced ozone precursors by 300 tons/day. It was the equivalent of
removing 3.5 Million cars from the road.
Since its conception in 1967, the ARB has successfully reduced smog at drastic
levels. In 1970 there were 148 “smog alerts” in California. This meant that the air had a
minimum of .2ppm to trigger a “Stage 1 Smog Alert”. Normally, the atmosphere has .09ppm.
In 1996 the Maximum recorded atmosphere was .24pm, which was a 59% improvement
from 1967. There were also only 7 “smog alerts” that year. By 1997 there was only 1 Smog
Alert. Since then the ARB has also been progressive on development of Fuel Cell vehicles
as well as its Zero Emissions Mandate for vehicles. This forced auto makers to produce
4,450 to 15,450 zero emission vehicles per year. Currently the ARB has signed the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which establishes the “first-in-the-world comprehensive (sic)
26

program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective
reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG). It makes the ARB responsible for monitoring and
reducing GHG emissions.” This was followed in 2007 by the ARB adopting “greenhouse gas
emissions limits to reflect 1990 levels, per the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32)
-- a roughly 25 percent reduction by 2020.” (ARB, 2008) To date the ARB has outpaced the
Federal Government on its pollution reduction. There have been numerous instances of the
ARB suing the EPA over poor regulations. In 2001 Governor Davis sued the EPA for
allowing Fuel Additives which would increase gasoline costs and increase air pollution
(Office of Governor, 2001). Even today Governor Schwarzenegger is suing the EPA over
failing to act on California’s tailpipe emissions request (Office of Governor, 2007).

Existing Energy Structure: California
The CPUC is the controlling board over the structuring and review of California’s
energy market (and other utilities, which are not covered in this study). They are in control of
the State’s overseeing process to make sure the utility company is acting responsibly and
the consumer is receiving the product at fair prices and with appropriate terms. The future of
California’s energy needs was placed into the hands of the California Energy Commission
(CEC). The CEC was created in 1974 with the intent of being the State’s energy policy
advisor. They were also created to research and investigate the future trends and future
technologies that will drive the Energy market. The major concern of the CEC for over 20
years was:
“making energy policy recommendations based on relevant, objective information
and analyses that promote affordable energy supplies, improve energy reliability,
and enhance health, economic well-being and environmental quality.” (CEC, 1997)

27

In 1996 the State of California, under Governor Pete Wilson, signed Assembly Bill
1890 (AB 1890) which called for competition in the retail energy market. This action,
commonly known as “Deregulation”, called for the government to remove its control on the
competitive aspects of the market, and allow competition between Energy Generation
companies to drive prices and technology. The current Energy structure in California is split
into two basic factions. The first, Energy Generation, is the source company that inputs the
raw materials and produces the power, which is then sold to the Supplier. In California
before Deregulation, the Utility often had its own Energy Generation capabilities which
supplied the majority of the Base Load. This meant that without external supply, the Utility
could provide reliable power to its consumer during non-peak periods. After Deregulation
the structure changed, and the Utility lost its generation capacity, and became dependant on
external Energy Generation. The municipal and/or private Utility Company that buys the
power from Energy Generation, and sells it to the consumer can be classified as the Energy
Supply. The actions of deregulation placed market control and prices in the hands of Energy
Generation. It was the belief that competition between different types of Energy Generation
and different companies would drives prices down and create a cheaper and faster growing
market (Carl Blumstein, 2002).
There were many factors leading up to Deregulation that promoted the idea that it
would save California’s energy market. Since the conception of the Clean Air Act of 1970
and its amendments in 1977, the creation of new power plants 50 mW or larger had dropped
to an average of 11 per year. This number can be compared to an 18.5 average from 1995
to 2007, after Deregulation (which includes a near zero slump from 1995-1998). In fact, from
1983 to 1991 only a total of 7000 mW of new utility capacity had become available. The
reason for these “new” energy sources came from Nuclear Power Plants that had started
planning and construction in the 1960’s and 1970’s. These plants had financially failed
28

causing constant setbacks that delayed their construction by decades. So the creation of
new large power sources had diminished to a near vanishing point.
Small power sources were on a strong charge though. When PURPA of 1978 was
enacted in response to the oil crisis of 1978, it demanded new, alternate sources of energy.
An act that was more politically driven, with the intent to remove our dependency on foreign
natural resources, ended up sparking the renewable resource and co-generation trend.
Traditionally the Power Supply had their own means of generation, and most of their
electricity was created internally. This allowed for self-regulation and a system of internal
checks and balances within the Utility Company. Not to mention a Monopoly on the supply
of their own product to a selected consumer base. This monopoly on generation caused a
series of problems with the integration of competitive, private generation sources. A Large
portion of the research on Deregulation comes from the University of California Energy
Institute, Center for the Study of Energy Markets document WP103 (Carl Blumstein, 2002).
This document covers the “History of Electricity Restructuring in California” in great detail.
As discussed before, the licensing of Qualified Facilities (QF) under 80 mW allowed
Utility companies to purchase power independently, and at competitive rates. Since there
was minimal power generation growth in the industry, this was a golden opportunity for the
Utilities to purchase energy without having to generate it themselves. It saved them on
everything from the startup costs to the impediment of Government and State regulations.
The promise of alternative power became so popular, that in 1983 CPUC approved “Interim
Standard Offer #4”, which allowed for Utility Companies to purchase power from QF’s at 20
to 30 years at a fair price structure. The company could pay a fixed rate for 10 years, and
then pay an inflation rate based on the cost of energy projections. At the time oil prices were
projected to increase steadily from the crisis, but in the late 1980’s to 1990’s prices settled
back down, making the “projected” inflation rates higher than the normal cost. Regardless
29

the interest in co-generation and renewable resources led to the suspension of the Interim
Standard Offer #4 because of the fear that the Utilities would make too many deals and hard
their futures. By this point in 1985, there were deals for over 15,000 mW of capacity (of
which only 9,500 mW were created by 1992). In 1989 CPUC tried to pass another plan to
again encourage the use of renewable energy. It was known as “Final Standard Offer #4”,
which was unfortunately rejected when it came to the floor. This was due mainly to the
contract and term issues that came about with the “Interim” plan. Due to the money lost in
20-30 year contracts and oil price projections that never came true, the legislation was never
passed. Regardless, by 1991 the co-generation and renewable energy QF’s provided
26.2% of the total energy needs of 3 investor owned Utilities. To reiterate, this 26.2% is not
solely “renewable” Energy, it is Energy that is mixed with renewable and co-generation. Co-
generation is the harnessing of “byproduct” waste heat, or waste energy, to create power.
An example would be creating additional power from a Coal Fired power plant before the
waste heat is cooled and/or escapes through exhaust towers. It is not a renewable power,
but an added efficiency measure to capture maximum power from a plant. The success of
these sources of power, offered on an open market, proved that bilateral growth in was
possible. Bilateral growth means the price and market trends were set through direct,
horizontal, competition. At the time the current practice, regulated by government, set prices
and trends from the highest source and sent them “vertically” down the chain to affect the
entire system.
The final deciding factor in the Deregulation of California was the electricity rates
compared to the United States Average. In 1992, California paid between 9 to 10.5 cents
per kilowatt hour. This was 30%-50% higher than the National Average (CPUC, 1993 pp.
122, Ch. 7). Since bilateral growth had shown potential, on a long term scale, it was
projected that it would succeed short term. It was also thought that the competitive market
30

would help lower California’s rates to the National Average or even below. So far CPUC had
great success with their other service providers, such as telecommunications and trucking,
with very little State interference. The movement to the reduction of regulation was on its
way.
In 1992 the planning phase began with the creation of the “Yellow Book”. This was
the directive of CPUC to “explore alternatives to the current regulatory approach in light of
the conditions and trends identified” (CPUC, 1992 p. 17). The Yellow Book started the open
discussion of the market issues. CPUC investigated 4 major strategies, based off of new
ideas and the success of other CPUC programs, such as telecommunications. They
included: A) Limited Reform B) Price Cap Model, C) Limited Customer Choice & D)
Restructured Utility Industry. In 1993 CPUC announced the Blue Book, in which they
decided to go with Strategy D, Restructured Utility Industry. The theory behind the change
in regulation was to eliminate the traditional “cost of service” regulation and replace it with
“performance based” regulation. This was the basic concept behind the prior success of the
alternative energy bi-lateral market. The Blue Book addressed many issues, proposing
questions along with possible solutions, then opening them up to the comments by the
affected parties. One of the key issues discussed was the need for CPUC to oversee the
development of the new Energy Market. Among many problems, CPUC saw the immediate
implementation of a bi-lateral system to be dangerous to system reliability. By allowing
immediate competition they worried that the Market would not develop properly. Another
issue was if CPUC should force the Utility companies to “divest” their generation plants, or if
they should be allowed to keep them. This was an issue of monopoly more than anything
else. It was the intention of the restructured market to have free competition, which was
difficult when the Utility buying the power could supply its own. When the final resolution to
reform came in April of 1994, the process of finalizing deregulation took place.
31

Decisions were made on policy and regulation to the point where CPUC decided to
restructure itself in order to control the new market growth. The market was base on a day-
ahead market Energy auction between Generation and Supply to provide the following day’s
power. The transmission access was also given to any provider in the auction pool. This
meant bi-lateral competition would have free access to power transmission and allow them
to supply energy to any location without resistance from any parties that may own the lines.
Due to the initial startup of Deregulation, bi-lateral competition was suspended for 2 years to
allow the system to be set up. In October of 1995 during reviews of the plan, an
independent counsel pointed out price of power issues which made the lower income
consumer susceptible to unfair, unstable electricity rates. This led to the removal of the 2
year suspension on bi-lateral sales. In 1995 the Policy Decision allowed retail customers to
purchase power direct from the Energy Generator or through Wholesalers via bi-lateral
contracts. This allowed for insurance on energy prices through the use of long term bi-
lateral contracts. The consumer would pay slightly higher premium rates, compared to the
base market price, in exchange for price stability.
The minority companies also felt that an operator was needed to watch over the new
market structure. Two operators across the system, operating in a transparent power trade
with no financial interests, would also help ensure free trade. Power therefore became
supplied in a pool method through the two operators, the “Power Exchange” and the
“Independent System Operator” (ISO). The Power Exchange helped insure that power was
distributed in a fair manner, in which pricing, scheduling and transmission access was fairly
applied. Their role would promote competition between which Energy Generation Company
would get contracts and it would promote the fair pricing of the power provided. This meant
the Independent Service Provider (ISO) would not see a preference in any form of electricity
supplied from any source. They would all be seen as equal when processed through the
32

Power Exchange. The role of the ISO was to coordinate and scheduling of daily power
purchasing, free access to transmission lines along with equal opportunity transmission
pricing and transmission reliability. The purpose of the ISO was to provide the lowest
transmission costs while taking no financial interest in the generation or sale of power. By
having no interest in where power comes from, this meant bi-lateral and Power Exchange
energy could be transmitted without prejudice. The Power Exchange and ISO acted as a
financial “double blind” system in the generation, sale and transmission of power.
One of the financial decisions made by CPUC was to encourage the Utility
companies, PG&E and SCE, to comply with the voluntary divestiture at least 50% of their
fossil fuel generation capabilities. This was encouraged by CPUC offering Utilities incentives
in the form of asset allowances. The purpose of this action was to place more power on the
bi-lateral and pool markets, encouraging the use of the new system. But the most important
financial decision was the implementation of the Competition Transition Charge (CTC). This
charge was set up for the Utility companies which had invested large amounts of money in
the creation of energy generation facilities and infrastructure. The current method setting fair
rate values assessed the Utility’s generation by accounting for the current facility and
infrastructure, along with all the investments that had been made to create them. Under the
new structure, many of these initial costs would not be accounted for, and the Utility would
not reclaim their invested funds. By implementing the CTC, the Utility could recoup their
investments. Its intention was to start in 1996 and have all funds repaid by 2005.
All of the new proposed changes brought on a series of conflicts between CPUC
and FERC. CPUC was looking to take on the role of regulation in California’s Utilities, but
currently role of the regulation was on the federal level, managed by FERC. With the new
bi-lateral market concept, the possibility of interstate Energy sales would be very likely. At
the current time, FERC controlled all interstate rates on the Federal level. So when the
33

planning stage took place, it was not sure who would regulate these future transactions. The
planned solution was for both agencies to work in a “Cooperative Federalism”, which would
place both entities in the rules and regulation position.
California’s Deregulation was initially scheduled to take place on January 1
st
, 1996.
Due to long delays in the review and legislation process, Deregulation was not implemented
until January 1
st
, 1998. One of the major additions added during legislation was the call for a
retail rate freeze along with a 10% cost reduction for 4 year transition period. This action
though was not based on CPUC’s analysis and research. It was created by politicians to
“sell” the idea of deregulation. Additionally many programs were created for low income and
other specialty groups. Initially, one of these programs was the creation of a renewable
energy standard, forcing the Utility to purchase a specific percentage of Green Power each
year. This program though was eventually removed in support of a surcharge-funded
program that would be applied for the 4 year transition period. Interestingly enough, over 10
years later California adopted a percentage based system similar to this one.

California Energy Crisis: Jan 1998 – Nov 2003
The implementation and 4 year transition period of Deregulation, 1998-2002, was
proposed to be a rough period, but the actual outcome of the process was worse than
anyone could have imagined. Deregulation resulted in the complete collapse of California’s
energy industry. The situation became so severe that Federal Intervention was needed to
seize and control the generation and sales of electricity. After the Federal regulation took
place, State Intervention was needed to financially pull three major private Utility companies
out of bankruptcy. To simplify many of the issues which caused the upcoming Energy Crisis,
the DOE listed 3 main categories and gave key points to the cause and solution of the power
34

crisis (DOE & EIA, 2005). High Wholesale Prices, due to loopholes and errors in the newly
created Power Exchange created an exponentially increasing problem. Energy regulation
was fragmented between too many agencies and in unclear divisions. Additionally,
Intermittent Power Shortages caused reduced supply and increased demand, along with
financial issues increased Stage 1 power shortages from 4 in 1999 to 54 in 2000, and 66 in
2001. Power shortages were ultimately followed by major problems with customer
satisfaction and government legislation. The shortages forced the Utilities to react in one
direction and the government to react in the opposite direction, which only exacerbated the
problem. The Financial Collapse of three major private Utilities was the third major factor.
The simple combination of the Utility being forced to buy increasingly costly energy, and then
being forced to sell it at a lower “frozen” retail rate bankrupt them.

35

Table 1: California Power Plants in Review (CEC, 2007)

The Energy Generation capacity in California is the first key to the crisis. From 1990
to 1999 the generation capacity in California dropped 2%. As mentioned in the prior section,
from 1995 to 1998 there was a near zero slump in the proposal of new power plants 50mW
or larger. This was a drop off from the already low average of 11 proposals per year (as
seen in the above Table). The Clean Air Act had put a stop to the creation of new power
plants, due to the relatively stringent regulations on new plants. California was already
facing a power crisis, outside of any illegal corporate actions. To make matters worse,
California had seen an 11% increase in retail electricity sales. These factors combined with
the fact that no new generation capacity had been created in over a decade overwhelmed
the system. This forced California to rely on 7 to 11 gigawatts of out of state power to meet
their demands. A large portion of that energy came from the Pacific Northwest’s
hydroelectric power plants. Due to drought, there were unusually low water levels, which
36

resulted in electricity not getting to Northern California. During 2000 there were nearly 10
gigawatts of power out of operation during peak periods.
This is where the importance of “Path 15” came into play. Path 15 is a set of 2 high
voltage power lines that ran through Central California from the south end, Gates, CA to the
north end, Los Banos, CA. The significance of this seemingly insignificant and isolated set
of power lines became the sudden, dramatic increase of power travelling between Southern
and Northern California. Before the energy crisis, most of the power needs were supplied
regionally. Southern California had power supplied from the Southern regions, and Northern
California from the Northern regions. The lack of energy coming in from other Northern
states, from reduced hydro power due to lack of water, caused a large amount of power to
be transmitted through Path 15. While most Paths had at least three 500 kVolt lines and
could transmit at 5,400 mW, Path 15 operated with two 500 kVolt lines at a maximum rating
of 3,900 mW South-to-North (Thalman, 2001 p. 4). When the power demand hit, both power
lines became instantly used to capacity, and Path 15 became a “choke off” point, in which it
was dramatically undersized for the amount of power it was suddenly transmitting.
37

Figure 1: Path 15 Diagram (Thalman, 2001)
Note: in 2003 construction began on a new, third 500 kVolt line. It was completed in 2004,
bringing Path 15 up from a rating of 3,900 mW to the standard rating of 5,400 mW.

38

Table 2: California Power Emergencies (DOE & EIA, 2005)

Table 3: Rotating Blackouts in California 2000-2001

Table Source: (Carl Blumstein, 2002) Data Source: CASIO System Status Log
39

All of these issues resulted in a reduction of available power in California. This
caused “rolling blackouts” throughout the State. As discussed earlier, Stage 1 power
shortages went from 4 in 1999, to 54 in 2000, and 66 in 2001. These blackouts were directly
blamed on the Utility Company. The Private Utilities felt the greatest burden of this entire
crisis. Deregulation put rules on the sale of power to Private Utility companies, Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E) were all privately owned Utilities, and were required to buy all of their power
through the California Power Exchange (CalPX). This was a temporary rule set up for the
first few years of Deregulation. All power had to be purchased through the Exchange, which
was a point sale system. This meant that power was purchased daily, and they could not
purchase under long term contracts. Bi-lateral and long term power contracts were
restricted, regardless of the prices compared to CalPX. Also, as mentioned earlier, the
Utilities were “encouraged” to sell 50% of their fossil fuel generation capacity to help even
out the market competition. Further, Politicians set into place rules that forced fixed
electricity rates and also implemented a 10% rate reduction. These rules were placed to
protect the consumer from rate jumps and to help ensure reliable, consistent Energy costs.
What they ended up doing was putting a freeze on the sale of electricity rates, while they
were forced to buy power from a pool market that was exponentially increasing in price.
By December of 2000 the three Independently Operated Utilities (IOUs) were
undertaking extreme financial blows from the market. The price of power offered by CalPX
on December of 1999 was $29.71 per mW, the price of power 1 year later in December of
2000 was $376.99 per mW. The price had increased over 11 times the original cost in only
12 months (DOE & EIA, 2005). The IOUs were on a quick road to bankruptcy. In July of
1999, the price freeze set for SDG&E expired and they began to increase rates according to
CalPX rate increases. By July 2000 the consumer rate had increased from 11 cents per
40

kWh to 16 cents per kWh. This was a 145% increase in cost due to generation inflation, and
it raised many issues in the political realm. While the Utility was trying to adjust according to
forced market prices, the politicians reacted by forcing a new rate freeze on the IOU. This
made the IOU to drop their prices from 16 cents per kWh down to 6.5 cents per kWh. To
add more financial burden onto the Utilities, natural gas prices also rose, as well as the
Power Plant emission requirements. So the only means of internal power generation felt the
burden of increased fuel costs, increased maintenance costs and new plant upgrade costs.
Instead of looking into the CalPX issues and loopholes in the new system, the blame was
put onto the Utility. The further the IOUs got into debt, the more problems occurred with
Energy and Fuel suppliers refusing to sell to them (DOE & EIA, 2005). The increasing debt
was becoming transparent and companies knew they would not be paid for their services
and product. This led to further Rolling Blackouts and further pressure by the consumer and
politicians onto the Utilities. The situation became so bad that in December of 2000 the
Secretary of Energy set an initiative that forced generators and power marketers to supply
electricity to California.

41

Table 4: CA Wholesale Electricity Prices – Monthly Means ($/mWh)

Table Source: (Carl Blumstein, 2002) Data Sources: PX prices as reported in Joskow (2001)
for 1998 through 2000; CAISO and CDWR data as reported by the CPUC for 2001
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/industry/electric/electric+markets/historical+information/avera
ge+energy+costs+2000+thru+2001.xls) Note: The prices for 1998 – 2000 are not strictly
comparable to the prices for 2001 since the PX price is for day-ahead transactions while the
CDWR data include prices for longer-term contracts.

In February of 2001 Governor Gray Davis signed “AB 1X” into law, which allowed
the Los Angeles Department of Water to purchase power under long term contracts. The
purpose of this was to allow the state to sell power to the IOUs (Specifically PG&E and SCE)
and it became an important change because it brought the State into the power industry. In
April of 2001, PG&E filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. It
was estimated that since June of 2000, PG&E had lost nearly $9 billion to “Unrecovered
Power Costs” (UPC). These were costs that were spent in the production and purchase of
power, but not recovered in the sale of power due to rate freezes. This number, combined
with SCEs debt totaled over $20 billion in debt by spring of 2001. These two IOUs were then
42

bailed out by the State of California, costing $10.2 billion and resulting in the layoff of over
1,300 state employees. It took Federal intervention and constant relief through rate changes
just to keep California’s Energy infrastructure from collapsing completely. The Energy Crisis
started by affecting the Private Utility companies the greatest, which in the end affected the
State of California greatly.
In January of 2001 a “State of Emergency” was declared in California. This lead to
“Executive Order D-22-01” in which Governor Gray Davis ordered all existing power plants to
operate to capacity, and all power plants that were not in operation, but functional, to begin
making power (Office of Governor, 2001). He also allowed power plants to operate over 50
mW without falling into the jurisdiction of the CEC and allowed to operate outside of their
regulations. The next stipulation in the order allowed the CEC to process applications for
Power Plant re-tooling and operations licenses at greater speed, truncating the review
process. The third and final stipulation also gave the CEC the same abilities to speed up the
review process of newly proposed power plants in California (Office of Governor, 2001).
This order allowed for the licensing of over 38 new power plants which totaled 14,365 mW.
As you saw in the “California Power Plants in Review” Table, there was also a dramatic
increase in new proposals, going from nearly zero in 1996 to over 30 in 2000, and over 55 in
2001. On October 7
th
, 2003 Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor, replacing Davis
mid-term in a recall election. In Nov of 2003, during his last few days in office, Governor
Gray Davis ended the “State of Emergency”. The effects of the Energy Crisis left California
in tremendous amounts of debt, in a state of utter regulatory and legislative confusion, and
caused the immediate change of leadership in hopes of a better future.

43

California Energy Crisis: Enron

Figure 2: Energy Structure Diagram (Swanson, 2008)
Through this entire period, as mentioned, the blame was directed at the Utility. But
the IOUs were operating under ethical practices and rules set forth by CPUC. Where the
blame was not placed, until later, was on the Energy Generation companies themselves.
Enron was a major contributor to the downfall of California’s Deregulation. By creating the
CalPX, and forcing the private Utilities to purchase power directly from them, the Energy
Generation companies could dictate prices without outside competition. As seen in the
above figure, the Utility would buy directly from the CalPX, at artificially inflated prices, and
sell to the consumer at State Regulated rates. The simple math shows that in 2001 the
Utility would only make back anywhere from $0.16 to $0.51 for every $1.00 they would
spend. The question then comes to why the prices jumped so drastically from 2000 to
2001? As discussed before, the lack of supply became an issue, as well as other problems.
But these problems were not alleviated by the Generation Companies, such as Enron. They
44

were exploited and compounded into disastrous problems. When the Energy Crisis in
California started, there were two roads they could have traveled. One would have been
cooperation and working for the “greater good”, which was not chosen. The other option
was to exploit and run the new power structure into the ground.
In September of 2001 the prices on energy began to normalize, and subsequently 3
months later in December of 2001 Enron went bankrupt. This very strange occurrence
brought attention, and the business practices of Enron were questioned. In the following
year the FERC would investigate the company and expose a series of tapes were found.
These tapes of Enron employees made claims that they were “stealing” up to $2 million a
day from California, as of September of 2000 (Peterson, 2004). The memos and tapes
recovered exposed a series of plots and scams that were constructed solely to inflate power
costs and reduce available power all without actually physically needing to raise prices or
physically having less power available. Some of these schemes are: Death Star, Black
Widow, Big Foot, Cong Catcher, Forney’s Perpetual Loop, Red Congo, Bottlenecking, Fat
Boy and Ricochet.

Figure 3: Death Star (Lucasfilm, 2008)
45

“Death Star” was the practice of shuffling power around the grid causing
“congestion”. Then Enron would receive payments to “Relieve Congestion” in the grid.
Their memo said they would be paid “for moving energy to relieve congestion, without
actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion”. “Bottlenecking” was the abuse of
“Path 15” (as discussed earlier). Enron would purposefully route power through Path 15,
causing congestion and therefore reducing supply and increasing demand. By ignoring the
simple solution of repairing the line, they were able to increase peak hour prices by 50%.
This is a classic example of choosing to go against the common good, instead of working for
it. “Fat Boy” was a re-routing game of sending power to a subsidiary who did not need it,
then turning around and re-sending it back to the Utility at a premium cost. It claimed that
they were not buying power from the source, but buying from the subsidiary, therefore the
rates were increased. One of the largest money making plans was called “Ricochet”, which
has also been called “Megawatt Laundering”. This was the practice of generating power in
California, and selling it out of State to an intermediary. The intermediary would then turn
around and sell the power right back to California at a highly inflated “imported” price.
Because the power crossed State lines there were huge loopholes in the regulation of price
and huge additional costs that the Utilities paid.
Corruption and abuse had become so bad that the flow of power and control of the
system had been almost completely handed over to the Energy Generators. Enron had the
ability to not only control where power was going, but they could trick the system into
thinking transmissions were taking place when they were not. A study done in 2002 by the
McCullough Research group found many inconsistencies in the reported mW capacities that
were flowing through Path 15, and the actual recorded mW flowing through. Data showed
that even though the Energy Generation Company and Utility agreed that the Path was
operating at maximum capacity, actually only 1/3 of capacity was used. Enron had become
46

so good at manipulation that they could completely cover up any trace of fraud. This was
helped greatly by the daily purchase system set up in CalPX. The quick turnaround allowed
for any and all data to be overwhelmed by the following day’s transactions. Before the Utility
could think about what was going on, the next day arrived and it was getting worse.
The study put out concluded that:
“1. Enron’s traders created a number of schemes designed to create imaginary
schedules eligible for ISO congestion payments.
2. These schemes, both in their scale and in their number, indicate that traders had
the ability to distort the ISO’s transmission operations throughout the State of
California.
3. These schemes included numerous counterparties. PGE was a primary player.
Other Pacific Northwest utilities were involved. California utilities such as LADWP
and NCPA appear to have played an important role.
4. The ability of the protagonists to manipulate the ISO system opens the question
whether critical operations during January 2001 suffered from their manipulations.
Data inconsistencies between the ISO and the Bonneville Power Administration
seem to support this hypothesis.” (McCullough, June 5, 2002)
Note: “counterparties” references parties that suffered from the scandal, not gained

As a final note on the Energy Scandal, in 2005 Federal Courts found that Enron
owed the State of California $1.52 billion. Due to Enron’s bankruptcy in 2001, the company
was only forced to pay $202 million. That left the State of California at a loss of $1.38 Billion
due to the manipulation of Deregulation from May of 2000 to December of 2001. The
absolute lack of control and complete financial destruction left in the wake of Enron left the
Energy Generation business in a stand still. Change was needed not only in the way power
was regulated, but in the way it was created, and where it was created. It was proven that
California cannot rely on distant power sources traveling thousands of miles to the
consumer. With the new Governor in office and a new model for California’s power structure
in the works, there is a lot of change in the future.
47

Energy Investment: Move to the Future
Energy in California, by 2003, had been broken down and stripped of all power.
There was a growing series of substantial changes that were set in motion in the late 1960’s
and early 1970’s. In the 1990’s most of the major Energy Generation companies and Fossil
Fuel companies completely restructured themselves. The most important factor behind the
changes was the effects of PURPA of 1978. PUPRA allowed for independent power
suppliers to sell power to the Utility. It was a new way to encourage competition with a
Monopoly market controlled by the Utility. Unfortunately, in the 1980’s and 1990’s America’s
housing and industry started to abandon old technologies and started to refine their process,
which resulted in the need for less power. This allowed the Utilities to provide enough
electricity to cover the base load of a growing population, without having to increase their
generation capacity. Since the Utility had no need for outside power generation, many
independent companies went out of business. This notion of the Utility having enough
internal generation capacity is not necessarily a bad idea, but it had negative effects in this
instance. In a similar situation the base loads could have been handled by the Utility, while
the peak loads could be handled by new, distributed, renewable sources. Another force
behind the restructuring of the Power Generation industry was the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990. “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and related state
regulations require electricity generators to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide.” (NEPDG, 2001 p. 20) The EPA of 1992 furthered the encouragement of competition
by allowing the struggling provider on the outside market free use of all Transmission Lines.
But the zero Generation Capacity growth, combined with a Utility monopoly and new
Environmental regulations was too much for the competition to take.
48

As an example of a fossil fuel operation that was effected by these changes is the
Rio Tinto Company. It was founded in 1905 and was a metal and mineral mining company
called RTZ, primarily mining Zinc, Copper, Gold, Diamonds and other precious metals and
minerals. During the late 1960’s to early 1980’s they took interest in fuels and materials for
the construction industry and automotive industry. But In 1987, after a review of the
marketplace, they sold their construction and automotive interests and refocused their
company’s business goals and proceeded to buy out a series of struggling fossil fuel mining
companies. From 1988-1994 RTZ purchased a series of failing mining operations. In 1997
TRZ officially recreated itself as Rio Tinto, a larger, stronger company built from smaller
operations. Today Rio Tinto provides 6% of the coal for the entire United States. In 2006
they had revenues of over $3.8 billion, and sold over 134 million tons of coal worldwide,
which was up 10.5 million tons from 2005. In addition to that, they also sold over 54 million
tons of coal to Australia (Rio_Tinto, 2008).
CONSOL Energy is another example of a fossil fuel mining operation that reformed
during the early 1990’s. Prior to this, CONSOL had been bought and owned by the DuPont
Corporation, and was facing difficult times. In 1991 two companies joined together to
purchase over 50% of the stock in CONSOL energy. They then proceeded to split off and
become an independent company again. Consol, like Rio Tinto had sales in the range of
$3.8 billion in 2006. They produce High BTU Coal and Natural Gas; in fact they claim they
produce enough to collectively fuel two thirds of all U.S. Power Generation (CONSOL,
2007). Per Year CONSOL produce 67.4 Million tons of High BTU coal for production, and
67.4 million tons for reserve. They also produce 63.5 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas, and
have a reserve of 4.3 billion Cubic Feet. In 2002 CONSOL joined the Energy Generation
market by creating an 88 Megawatt facility in Virginia. The facility is a joint venture with
49

Allegheny Energy Supply who services mainly West Virginia and Maryland, while providing
power to parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Energy Generators also went through reform in the 1990’s and then major rebuilding
after the Enron scandal in 2001. American Electric Power (AEP) was a dominant force in
power generation. During the 1990’s they were hurting from struggling power needs. In
1996 they provided over 100 million megawatt hours. In 1997, they were forced to merge
with Central and Southwest Corp of Dallas, Texas. By the end of 1997, they produced over
200 million megawatt hours, double their previous year’s total. To show the low level of
American Generation growth, by 2006 they provided approximately 214 million megawatt
hours. That is only a 1.07% Generation Capacity growth over a 10 year period. In 2006
they had revenue of over $12.6 billion, and had accumulated total assets of $38 billion (AEP,
2007).
LS Power is a fully integrated development, investment and asset management
group of companies founded in 1990. Their focus was on the acquisition and development
of Generation companies, and then using their management skills to help rebuild a
struggling industry. As the company proved successful in the management of multiple large
power plants and small companies, their assets grew in development. In 2005 LS Power
launched LS Power Equity Partners, a $1.2 billion investment vehicle. To date they have
purchased seventeen power generation projects for a total of 11,300 mW. The investment
branch of the firm mainly looked to the financial disruption caused by the California Energy
Crisis for its own future. In 2001 after the Enron scandal, many Energy Generation
companies struggled. MIRANT was a large generation company that completely collapsed
and filed for bankruptcy from 2003 to 2005. Before December of 2006, their annual revenue
was estimated at $3.1 billion and they controlled 17,522 megawatts of generation capacity.
As of 2007 they have sold off most of their generation capacity, of which LS Power bought
50

six U.S. Natural Gas facilities. With their management portfolio and acquisitions, currently
LS Power has a generation capacity of 12,478 Megawatts and manages an additional 4,382
megawatts owned by outside parties (LS_Power, 2007). All of which came from a struggling
market in the 1990’s and a failed market in 2001.
These are examples of major companies that either had long histories, or new
beginnings which all revolved around a 15-20 year span of recent history. This restructuring
was not limited to the Energy Generation companies. The financial institutions that invest in
these companies also felt major impacts during the wake of the Enron scandal.
“As of September 30, 2001, the 27 registered holding systems (which included 35
registered holding companies) owned 133 electric and gas utility subsidiaries, with
operations in 44 states, and in excess of 2500 nonutility subsidiaries. In financial
terms, as of September 31, 2001, the 27 registered holding company systems
owned more than $417 billion of investor-owned electric and gas utility assets and
received in excess of $173 billion in operating revenues. The 27 registered systems
represent over 40% of the assets and revenues of the U.S. investor-owned electric
utility industry and almost 50% of all electric utility customers in the United States."
(Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2002)

As of Sept 31, 2001 27 Holding Companies accounted for $417 billion in Operating
Revenues, and had control of 50% of this Nation’s Power Generation. With the fall of Enron
& the fall of the Financial Investments in the Power Sector, everything these holding
companies had achieved was gone, leaving an open door for complete reform. The power
that had been built was now removed. The significance of these events is the fact that there
are no 50 or 100 year, old money, old world structures that keeps the Energy Generation
market frozen in time. Since the largest companies were reconfigured, along with their
financial backing, that means they are not relying on past accomplishments to be the
foundation of their empire. They are looking to the next 100 years of Energy to try and
develop a new foundation to secure their companies future.

51

Energy Investment: Renewable Energy and Government Interest
Based on decades of research, traditional energy generation has been found to
have severe negative effects on our micro and macro environment. To remediate these
damages and provide a positive future for our planet, the future of energy lies in Renewable
and low pollution forms of power. Both of which, either produce relatively zero or relatively
low amounts of pollution or environmental disruption that can be remedied naturally by the
earth or artificially by humans. Sources of power such as, but not limited to, solar, wind,
geo-thermal, bio fuel and hydro-electric. These forms of energy, which have been
exponentially advancing in the last decade, are looked to as the future of America’s Energy
Supply. On the National level our current president, George W. Bush still cannot agree to
join the worlds current Energy Plan, the Kyoto Protocol. His is not new news though, our
former president Bill Clinton also could not agree on the terms when it was completed in
1997. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, they
define Kyoto Protocol as an “… international agreement, which builds on the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, sets legally binding targets and timetables for
cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries,” (UNFCCC, 2008). It was
first developed during a 1995 conference in Kyoto, Japan and the first adopted draft was
completed in 1997. The basic principal behind the Kyoto Protocol is for the world’s leading
countries need to reduce their 2012 pollution levels to the levels that country had in 1990
(this is a very simplified definition). Most leading European nations and many other
countries globally have adopted this plan, but the United States is behind on this movement.
Many people have blamed George W. Bush for being soft on his environmental policies.
According to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, in an interview on
February of 2008, "Any of the candidates: Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton or John McCain, will be
more committed to combating climate change than the present administration." This
52

statement was in reaction to the upcoming Presidential campaign, in which Mr. Barroso feels
any of the eligible candidates will be more progressive than George W. Bush (Doyle, 2008).
An important fact pointed out by this article is the change of political power in America’s near
future. This statement by Barroso points out that the next leadership will be more
progressive on renewable and low pollutant sources of power, as well as reducing other
types of pollutants from other sources. While it is understood that politicians, no matter what
their goals are prior to office, do not always deliver what is expected, it appears that
combined with our national look to renewable we may have a better chance from “top down”
change. Also, as mentioned earlier, while the EPACT of 2005 combined with the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) of 2007 and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) of 2006
provide tremendous resources for growth in the Renewable Energy market. They will help
fuel the next political office and push to a renewable future for America. But while these
provide the foundation for a renewable future, they are not trailblazers for American change.
Table 5: Per Capita Energy per Person (kWh) (CEC, 2008)

53

California has been leading the forefront of the American Environmental movement.
Beginning in October of 2001, in the wake of the California Energy Crisis, Governor Gray
Davis signed Senate Bill 527. This put the CEC in control of California’s energy policy
through their guidance and research on issues such as Greenhouse Gas emissions,
combined with their role in qualifying third-party organizations to provide technical assistance
and certification of emissions baseline and inventories. Since the CEC has been put into a
greater position of power, they have become a positive influence on the renewable industry.
Under their guidance and assistance, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order
#S-3-05 which established the following Greenhouse Gas targets: 2010 reduce emissions to
2000, 2020 reduce emissions to 1990, 2050 reduce emissions to 80 percent below the 1990
levels (in other words, 20% of 1990 level). This “top down” form of change is important to
the growth of renewable energy in California. Due to California’s Energy Efficient building
codes, they are currently the leading state in energy consumption per person, having a 0%
growth in the last 30 years. Elsewhere in the United States, energy consumption per person
has risen 50% since 1980. Even though our per person energy use is low, we still have an
annual increase, in total energy consumption of 1.35% (peak hour load) due to population
growth. It is calculated that in order to achieve the 2020 goals, California will have to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by a total of 29%. In order to achieve this, it has put the CEC in
charge of the State’s energy goals. These new laws put restrictions on the purchase of
electricity with Utilities which forbid the purchase of coal-fired power. Senate Bill 1389,
adopted in December of 2007 states that the CEC’s role will increase to:
"[C]onduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply,
production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The
Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy
policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability,
enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety." (Pub. Res.
Code § 25301(a)) (CEC, 2008)
54

The CEC has also found that in order to achieve the goals set for 2020, reduction in coal
fired power is not the only necessity. Building improvements and efficiency programs will
have a major impact.
“Scenario analysis indicates that these aggressive cost-effective efficiency
programs, when coupled with renewables development, could allow the electricity
industry to achieve at least a proportional reduction,
[5]
and perhaps more, of the
state's CO
2
emissions to meet AB 32's 2020 goals.” (CEC, 2008)

This statement shows the dramatically important relationship between the quality of
the Energy Source and the technology of Building Science. Our greenhouse gas emissions,
much like our diverse energy plan requires multiple methods of action. We cannot rely on
one technique or technology alone. The combination of many trades will bring California to
our 2020 goals. Hopefully, with our example, the nation can quickly adopt our researched
and tested methods, bringing the United States closer to its goals at an accelerated pace.
Table 6: California GhG Reduction Strategies (CEC, 2008)

As a final note on this issue, government financial assistance in the purchase of
renewable energy sources will not be addressed. The assistance given to private and public
55

consumers through the forms of tax rebates, credits, rate tariffs, etc are not a constant
through any region or time. This decision will specifically affect the return rates of PV Solar
Arrays the most. The main reason for this is that even though there is a focus on Southern
California, the figures need to be universally applicable. If the incentives of Southern
California were applied, then this study would not be applicable to Arizona where there is no
State assistance, or New Mexico where there is State or Utility no assistance at all.
Ironically Arizona and New Mexico have some of the highest concentrations of Solar
Radiation available and would produce the most energy per panel. Also, as learned in the
1970’s when tax incentives and rebates are exhausted or repealed, so is the growth of the
industry. So through this example we can learn that the rules of today may not exist
tomorrow. If financial assistance is not calculated, it helps expand the study’s timeline to be
of use for research in the future. Finally, but most importantly, it will allow the study to fairly
compare PV Solar Arrays to other renewable sources of power which do not have the same
incentives. If financial assistance is applied only to PV Solar Arrays, and not the alternative
methods, it would not be a fair comparison. During the later calculations, references to
these Government Assistance programs will be made, as well as including figures that
reflect the financial assistance. But these will be used more are additional information to
show the current state of affairs.
56

Figure 4: Renewable Energy Rebate Programs (DSIRE, 07)
57

Chapter 3: Existing Renewable Energy
In Los Angeles, like the rest of California, there is the goal: by 2010 reduce
emissions to 2000 levels, 2020 reduce emissions to 1990, 2050 reduce emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) has agreed to meet these goals, and set up other targets of their own. It is
LADWP’s Renewable Energy Policy which has the goal of 20% renewable power by 2010.
The goal has been extended under Mayor Villaraigosa, who on May 23, 2007 announced the
new Climate Action Plan which set long term goals for the city. “We’re setting the green
standard in LA. Reducing our carbon footprint by 35% below 1990 levels is the most
ambitious goal set by a major American city.” (New_Rules_Project, 2007) The new, longer
term goal of 35% renewable by 2020 and 35% below 1990 levels by 2030 establish a plan of
action to meet the goals of 80% reduction by 2050. This Plan also sets the pace for
California to follow the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of 7% below 1990’s emissions by 2012. This
progressive action, relative to the rest of the United States, also has additional unique Green
Energy Programs that are active outside of these figures and calculations.
As a background to the Municipal Utility, LADWP has been in operation since 1902
and serves 1.4 million electricity customers and 680,000 water customers. They have 8,357
employees and have operating revenue of $2.25 billion for electricity and $628 million for
water. They have a total capacity of 7,200 mW and their highest peak load to date has been
5,708 mW. In Total, LADWP provided 25.4 Billion Kilowatt Hours in 2005 (LADWP, 2006).
The LADWP Green Energy Program is an innovative plan initiated back in 1999. It was one
of the first programs of its kind and has become a role model for programs in other cities.
The Green Energy Program was created under the concept that the consumer should be
allowed to demand renewable energy from their energy provider. The program allows the
58

consumer, either residential, small business, commercial or even large industrial to
subscribe to Green Power. By subscribing to Green Power, they choose to demand
anywhere from a minimum of 20% to maximum of 100% of their total power consumption to
be from renewable energy sources. The cost for this option is an additional 3¢ per kilowatt
hour, with a 12 month minimum commitment. The 12 month minimum dedication is a
resultant of long term power purchase agreements. In order to keep reliable power at low
rates, the Utility establishes yearly contracts for renewable power. This ensures fair
treatment to the consumer, as well as the power producer. The additional 3¢ per kilowatt
hour is a price determined by the Renewable Energy Option (REO) service rider. The
following table, obtained from the NREL document: “Utility Green-Pricing Programs: What
Defines Success?” gives examples of several Utility programs that have prices which vary
from 1.28¢ to 4.75¢ per kilowatt hour rates (data gathered in 2001). They attributed a large
amount of these variations to the amount of additional state and federal funding used to
offset costs energy (Swezey, 2001). Additionally many of the national costs have lowered
since this study due to the increasing efficiency of wind energy turbines, which often provide
a high percentage of the renewable. Usually Wind Power, Small Hydro & Large Hydro
provide most of the renewable energy, as will be seen later in the “Power Content Label.”
Table 7: Utility Green Pricing Programs by Premium Amount

59

In its original conception, back in 1999, the residential customer was limited to 20%
maximum commitment and paid a fixed rate of $3 per month. The beginning of the Green
Power Program was not as successful as it has been in the recent years. After the creation
of the program, they were given $8 million per year to provide rebate checks to consumers
that bought and installed Solar Panels. It was found that in fact, they had sent over $17
million in rebate checks. This was not a bad thing in the eyes of the city. The program
appeared to be a greater success than they had hoped. It wasn’t until an Audit in 2002 that
they found the Green Power Program had spent a total of $22.7 million and only achieved
2.2% renewable power. This audit found that too much money was sent out and never
inspected. Many of the rebate checks went to Solar Panels that were not properly installed
or simply not working at all. Also they found that a large amount of money went to marketing
and public relations, which was not the intended purpose of the money. So through
mismanagement of funds the early years had great prospect, but bad results.
In the following years the payment method of a flat $3.00 rate switched over to a
kilowatt hour rate. It wasn’t until recently that LADWP allowed residential customers to
commit to more than 20%. The reason for the delay in allowing residential customers to fully
commit to power was out of uncertainty. In October of 2007, Kim Hughes in the Public
Affairs Department of LADWP told the author that it was an older rule that was created to
prevent LADWP from committing to large amounts of renewable energy at the beginning of
the year, and then having the residential consumer finding themselves unable to pay the
increased rates (Kim Hughes, 2007). That would leave LADWP responsible for purchasing
12 months of Green Power with consumers that could not afford the rates. It was more of a
“cover your back” strategy than anything else. Around the start of the New Year, 2008, the
Green Power Program updated to allowing 100% dedication. Oddly enough, like much of
this program, they do not publish reasons “why” or the history of the project. So it is difficult
60

to say with any certainty why they changed and also what the statistic were for preceding
years.
As of the end of the year 2006, the Green Power Program had a total of 23,429
customers, of which 22,860 were residential. The residential sector contributes 29,357,781
kWh and the non-residential contributes 32,713,397 kWh. This shows an average
commitment of 1.25 mWh per residential customer, which is 20.8% of LADWP’s resident
average of 6 mWh per household (LADWP, 2007). On a non-residential side we see a much
higher energy commitment of an average 57.4 mWh per consumer. It shows the importance
of green energy on a smaller scale, to the residential customer as well as the importance of
green energy on a larger scale to the commercial customer. An example of a non-residential
consumer is the City of Santa Monica, who is known as being the first green city in the
United States. As a note, Santa Monica is not committed to the green power program
because they are in the jurisdiction of So Cal Edison. Regardless of where their territory
lies, Since 1999 Santa Monica purchased their power directly from Electric America
(formerly “Commonwealth Energy”). Since the city made their power purchase before
Deregulation in 2000 and 2001, they pay a lower rate right now than if they had followed the
rules of the Energy market. They also have a few residential customers who made this
purchase before the rules changed. As a result though, currently many citizens of Santa
Monica cannot subscribe to Green Power because it is not offered by their current provider,
So Cal Edison (SMGOV, 2007). As of 2003, the city paid a rate of 8¢ per kilowatt hour and
used an average 5 mWh (not specified if that is base load or peak load). The rate of 8¢ per
kilowatt hour for renewable energy is the equivalent to the rates from So Cal Edison for non-
renewable power (DSIRE, 2007). This example shows that the potential for the Green
Power Program, or programs like it, is much higher than advertised.
61

In fact, there is almost zero advertisement for the program itself. Even on the
standard LADWP bill sent out to all customers there is no mention of alternative energy
options. The author subscribes to Green Power, and I honestly remember how he even
heard about the option. All he does remember is that he found it by accident, and their
literature was difficult to understand. One of the theories behind this is the internal
competition between the Green Power Program and LADWP’s new goals of meeting Mayor
Villaraigosa’s new Climate Action Plan. Since the Green Power Program was created as a
separate entity, and operates outside of the calculated power mix (power mix calculated for
the Climate Action Plan) they are almost treated as a separate company within LADWP.
What this means is, that when the 20% by 2020 renewable energy is calculated, the Green
Power Program’s renewable portfolio will not be calculated. Only the LADWP Power will be
calculated (see Table below). Any renewable power generated through the Green Power
Program is above and beyond LADWP’s Renewable Portfolio. But since the Green Power
Program only attributes for a small fraction of the total power generation, its impact is not as
large as it seems on the Power Content Label. In the 2004-2005 year LADWP sold over
22.8 million Megawatt Hours to the consumer. Using that number as an estimate for 2006,
the Green Power Program supplied LADWP with 62 Million Kilowatt Hours (actual in 2006)
equaling a projected 0.2% of the total mix.

62

Table 8: LADWP Power Content Label (LADWP, 2007)

To review the power content label it is necessary to understand the columns and
how they are calculated. At the start of the 2006 fiscal year, LADWP had a projected power
mix (column 1) of 6% eligible renewable. At the end of the 2006 fiscal year, LADWP had an
actual power mix (column 2) of 7% eligible renewable. This means that when they
calculated the actual energy used after the end of the year, LADWP found that they had
exceeded their projections by 1%. You will also notice that they predicted a larger use of
geothermal energy, when actually they ended up getting 1% of their power from wind. As a
note, Large Hydroelectric is not classified as “renewable” due to the local environmental
63

impact dams and large reservoirs have on existing ecosystems. It can be argued that the
change of a centralized ecosystem due to a dam is better than mining out an entire canyon
and destroying that local ecosystem completely, but that is a subject for another thesis. In
the third and fourth column there is the Green Power Program projected and actual mix.
Since this program is based on providing renewable power on demand, their power mix is
therefore 100% renewable. Interestingly enough the projected mix was 70% small
hydroelectric and 30% wind power. The actual power mix was 100% wind, probably due to
a lower rain and snow base than in a normal year.
The Green Power Program does not necessarily deliver green power to the
consumer that has signed up. The program works by calculating the power requested to be
renewable, for example 100% of 6 mWh for a typical Los Angeles residence. When that 6
mWh is dedicated to the Green Power Program (for 12 months minimum), LADWP then on
the next cycle cancels 6 mWh of power from non-renewable sources. The 6 mWh are then
purchased through a 12 month minimum contract with a renewable energy supplier. This
power, which is created usually in the Pacific Northwest or California Deserts, is then sent
into the grid. The energy is then absorbed by the closest location and does not technically
ever reach the consumer who has purchased the Energy. But by providing Green Energy to
a city or town who is closer to the source, you reduce the amount of transmission loss.
Transmission loss is a large issue in renewable power, as mentioned in the earlier chapter.
By providing renewable power to the closest customer, the losses are reduced making it
more economically feasible. When the renewable energy is provided, the non-renewable
energy is then no longer needed and could be thought of as “sent back” to its source. This
“offsets” the energy to the next inner circle location in a ripple effect. It theoretically offsets
circle to circle until it reaches to residence that demanded the renewable energy. By "Power
Offsetting”, the renewable energy may never physically reach the consumer who purchased
64

it, but it does theoretically. It is the input of renewable power into the grid that is important,
not who physically receives it. The concept of Power Offsetting has been proven successful
by the LADWP Green power program.

Figure 5: Power Offsetting
In Sacramento, Ca the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD also has a
similar program. SMUD has been in operation since 1946 an currently has 2,213 employees
(26% of LADWP) and they have a total of 585,221 electricity customers (41% the size of
LADWP). Their annual operating revenue is $1.39 billion (55% of LADWP). Their highest
peak demand of 2006 was 3,299 mW (57% of LADWP). In total SMUD sold 14.7 Million
65

Kilowatt Hours to residential and commercial customers in 2006 (6.4% of LADWP) (SMUD,
2007). As a note, that percentage does not seem accurate even though it is from the
primary source. According to the CEC California Energy Demand report, SMUD sold
approximately 40% of LADWP power sales in 1998, and projected they would sell 50% of
the LADWP power sales in 2004. That number seems accurate, but it came from a
secondary source (CEC, 2000). Based on that figure, it can be assumed that SMUD sold
14.7 Billion Kilowatt Hours. SMUD also has a projected 15% renewable, 13.1% actual in
2006 (SMUD, 2007) which is nearly double LADWP’s 7% renewable portfolio.
Table 9: SMUD Power Content Label (SMUD, 2007)

66

LADWP is not the only program in the country that is using the concept of green
power on demand. SMUD has their own program called “Greenergy”. This program,
created in 1997, is nearly the same as the “Green Power Program”. Greenergy, unlike
LADWP, only has two options for the consumer, 50% commitment and 100% commitment.
This means their overall power commitment is 30%-70% higher per person than LADWP’s
program (based on LADWP avg. of 20.8% per residential). The actual kilowatt hours sold
through Greenergy was not found in this research. Greenergy also has a different rate
structure, which is similar to LADWP’s early rate structure. For Residential customers, they
offer and additional charge of $3 per month for 50% commitment, and $6 per month for
100% commitment. For commercial, the rate is an additional 0.5¢ per kilowatt hour for 50%
commitment, and 1¢ per kilowatt hour for 100% commitment. It is estimated in 2006 that
there are approximately 36,000 participating customers, of which 34,000 are residential
(SMUD, 2007). This is well above the LADWP residential participation of 23,429, of which
they dedicate and average 20.8%.
Interestingly though SMUD lists a series of issues that are making it difficult to
expand on renewable energy. The largest problem they state is Transmission of renewable
power from the source to Northern California. They note that some transmission lines were
upgraded and repaired in Southern California, but the trend did not continue up North.
“There are plenty of renewable energy resources in the West, but transmission is not
available to access these resources. While there has been some progress on
transmission construction beginning in Southern California, there has been very little
progress expanding transmission access to renewable energy resources in Northern
California. Transmission takes many years to plan, permit, and build, and new
facilities require high capital expenses.” (SMUD, 2007)

Along with this issue, SMUD ranks their second largest problem as being a decline in
available renewable sources and increasing prices. They state that in 2004 when a call for
Renewable Energy proposals was made, they received 42 from independent suppliers.
67

When the same call for proposals was made in 2006, they only received 8. Along with the
decrease in energy sources, came a 15% increase in energy price. It does not state
whether the sources from 2004 had closed down, or if they had shifted from SMUD to
LADWP. This is a possibility considering their statements combined with the fact that
LADWP had experienced a 200% increase in renewable energy use during the 2004-2006
period. An assumption can be made that in 2004 SMUD was the major consumer of
renewable energy in California, and they received the majority of proposals. But when
LADWP increased their need for power, they received the proposals. This would also make
sense considering SMUD’s statement that Southern California had greater access to the
Renewable Sources, while SMUD had difficulty getting power from Southern to Northern
California. Along with that, it could be assumed also that SMUD may get their power at
higher rates because there is lower supplier and higher demand, combined with higher
transmitting loss.
Both LADWP and SMUD are examples of the potential for growth in the Renewable
Energy sector. While LADWP is a larger energy user, SMUD is more advanced with their
Renewable platform. Considering Los Angeles has greater access to both proper
transmission and more renewable power sources, there is a great deal of growth available.
One of the things in common with both LADWP and SMUD though is their power sources do
not include Solar. Both Utilities appear to stay away from Solar Power in their renewable
program. In fact, recently SMUD has been developing the “Solar Share” system, in which
they will offer Solar Power on demand, much like the way Greenergy works. It is a program
that allows the customer to subscribe for percentages of power. But they are sold as
“shares” and can be bought for a year, instead of having the power dedicated. While using
different terms to visually separate the two options, Greenergy and Solar Share are the
same concept. The consumer has the option to dedicate their power to “Renewable”
68

sources under Greenergy, and to “solar only” sources under Solar Share. This is important
to mention because while similar terms may be used, Solar Shares are not similar to this
thesis concept.
As a personal note I find it very strange that both LADWP and SMUD conceal the
final, actual numbers and release as little factual information about these programs as
possible. This research obtained percentages and in-calculable information with great ease,
but actual numbers were very difficult to obtain. This makes it very difficult to come to a
conclusion on the actual effect of the Greenergy and Green Power Program. It also makes it
very difficult to compare them to other Utilities that do not offer the Renewable Power on
Demand programs. So Cal Edison, SCE (part of the Edison International Corporation) does
not provide a similar program. But SCE does provide other incentives and an impressive
renewable portfolio. While LAFWP has a 7% renewable mix with a Green Energy Program
and SMUD has a projected 13.1% renewable mix with the Greenergy program, So Cal
Edison has a 16% renewable mix in their power. In 2006 they sold 96.1 billion kWh, which is
nearly 5 times LADWP’s sales. This 16% in actual numbers comes out to 15.3 billion kWh,
which is more energy than SMUD sells annually. This decision to have a high renewable
portfolio is due to the private ownership of the Utility choosing to pursue that direction.
There are reasons for this decision outside of social conscience, such as trying to avoid a
repeat of the Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 by developing a more diverse portfolio. It is not
clear why SCE has not chosen to pursue a Renewable Energy on Demand option for
consumers. Since Santa Monica, this nations first “green city”, is in SCE’s territory, it would
seem that a Renewable Energy on Demand option would be very successful. SCE also
provides power for a large part of Orange County, which is an exponentially growing
population.

69

Table 10: SCE Power Content Label (SCE, 2007)

To add an additional point, the Energy providers make it very difficult to compare
these numbers by presenting them in complicated ways. Not one of these 3 utilities
presented their numbers in the same way. Each used different scales and figures. Numbers
such as 96,146 million kilowatt hours (96.1 billion kWh) compared to 25.4 kilowatt hours sold
“billions” (25.4 billion kWh) and then to a simple 14,736,556 kilowatt hours (0.14 billion kWh).
Which in the end, it seems that the 14,736,556 kWh, or 14.7 million kWh, was supposed to
be 14.7 billion kWh. That was figured out thanks to stumbling upon an old CEC report that
listed some older figures between the Utilities in an easy 1 to 1 method. That report allowed
me to create ratios in which to compare. So from there I knew that SCE provided roughly 5
times the electricity of LADWP, and LADWP provided roughly 2 times the electricity of
SMUD. It took hours to not only find these numbers hidden in financial reports, but then
additional hours to try and figure out what they meant. It is amazing that something so
straight forward can be made so utterly confusing.
70

Chapter 4: Los Angeles Population & Being “Green”
“There’s no question, the city of Los Angeles has the potential to be the world’s
capitol for solar power.” (GreenBuildingsLA, 2008) Los Angeles is potentially an emerging
force in Solar Power. In California, Los Angeles accounts for 10% of the total electricity
used. If Los Angeles takes the necessary actions to participate in the 1,000,000 Solar Roofs
initiative, they would account for 100,000 new solar installations. This would comprise
nearly 300 mw of generation capacity (GreenBuildingsLA, 2008) during its average 5.5 hours
of direct sunlight (Go_Solar, 2005). California itself is the leading purchaser of Solar Panels
in the United States. 90% of the US Solar market is in this state, according to Arno Harris,
CEO of Recurrent Energy. In 2006 approx 50 megawatts of solar power was installed
through 434 registered Solar Installation companies in California (DICUM, 2007). The total
Solar Power to date in California is 62 Megawatts (Corum, 2008). The amazing part of this
statistic is the industry boom due to emerging efficient technologies, cheaper energy costs
and most importantly the funding set in place by the State of California. Since 1998, $230
million in rebates have been awarded in the state, with the new initiative it is expected that
$3.2 billion will be invested by 2016. “California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s goal is
to have 3,000 MW installed by 2020” (Corum, 2008).
Due to the tax incentives currently offered through Solar Installations, many large
companies are installing PV arrays on rooftops of public works, government and non-profit
organization buildings through California. Under the current rate structure, Los Angeles
offers to pay the residential and commercial consumer $2.50 per watt for Solar Power
created and inputted into the grid (GoSolarCalifornia, 2008). For Government and Non-
Profit entities they are offering $3.50 per watt (GoSolarCalifornia, 2008). By 2017, 10 year
from the initial date, the rates will drop an average of 7% per year resulting in a 20¢ per watt
71

loss (Corum, 2008). So in both instances, non-profit and government entities enjoy greater
benefits. For this reason many large private corporations are looking to invest in Solar
Power in new ways. In Los Angeles, Los Angeles Community College District is planning on
installing nine 1mw systems on their 9 campuses. For example, Chevron Energy Services is
installing a 1 mW system on East Los Angeles College. Chevron and LACDD currently have
2 other campuses with existing PV arrays will be upgraded to 1 mW. Under the new
contracts, the school will pay 13¢ per kWh to Chevron, instead of 21¢ per kWh to So Cal
Edison. In exchange for the reduced rates, LACCD gives the tax credits to Chevron. This is
a trend currently being pushed to be in production before the end of the year. If the Federal
Tax credits are not extended by congress, they will be nullified after December 31
st
, 2008.
The possible future for a boom in the privately funded Solar Industry lies in wait. But
for a public, nonprofit industry the future seems to be getting clear. The direction for the
million solar roofs lies in the government and non-profit industry. The residential and
commercial consumer has a disadvantage in two areas, rates and tax credits. There are
244,859 private businesses in Los Angeles County. As seen in the previous chapter,
commercial customers provided a great deal of energy commitment to the Green Power
Program. They also have the income, revenues and tax needs that would make them prime
candidates to market Solar Incentives. A Residence may be able to purchase a small array
once, but a large business could purchase Solar Arrays time and time again as the financial
return comes in through the years. Since the incentives do not currently fall best on
residential and commercial, government and non-profit are reaping the rewards. That
means any private funding for Renewable Energy projects designed to achieve tax
incentives and better rates, from companies like Chevron, will reach residential and
commercial after all other avenues have been expended. But regardless there is still a large
industry for solar in all arenas. But this boom does have several drawbacks inherent in
72

upgrading an existing infrastructure. The first obvious drawback is Solar Exposure on
individual homes and buildings. In a dense population such as urban Los Angeles buildings
grow upward, not outward. This means there are many homes and businesses that do not
have optimal Solar Access because they are facing the wrong directions or simply because
the building next to them is taller and shades their structure. But the dense infrastructure
does inherently have lower amounts of waste per household. Density often results in more
efficient building systems. Multi unit apartment buildings perform better than single family
homes. Multi story apartments often have greater thermal mass, large heating units for the
entire building and other advantages. In the less dense areas of Los Angeles there are
more opportunities for Solar Access, but in an environment where shade trees are the best
solution for reducing cooling costs, which is “greener”? Installing a series of PV panels to
create electricity to cool a house or planting trees that will shade the house and reduce the
need for electricity? These homes also have greater energy needs due to more heated and
cooled square footage per person compared to apartment buildings. These issues regarding
energy waste in single family homes and apartment buildings will be discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 8.
Even under the assumption that locally installed PV Solar Panels is the clear cut
best solution; there are greater issues that arise with the average citizen in Los Angeles.
These issues can be seen when the demographics from the census bureau are analyzed.
The average citizen in Los Angeles, in 2004 earns $43,518 annually. According to the
United Way, in 2007 the average income was $46,332 annually. Los Angeles has an
extremely high rental rate of 51%. That means that over half the homes occupied in Los
Angeles are rented. The average rents in the less dense regions of Los Angeles appear to
be in the $1,500 range. In San Fernando Valley, “For May, 2007, the average listed rent
price of all listed rentals in these areas was $1,529.67” (Westside_Rentals, 2007). In the
73

denser areas “The average rent in L.A .and Orange County in large complexes is now
$1,630 per month” (Los Angeles Times, 2007). According to Federal Government
Guidelines, homeowners should not pay more than 1/3 their income to rent. In Los Angeles,
53% of all renters pay over this mark for their rent. California averages 47% overall and the
U.S. averages 41%, both of which are substantially lower. Los Angeles is one of the most
expensive housing markets in the nation. In the county, over ½ the people rent their homes
and over ½ of those renters pay more than the recommended 1/3 maximum established by
the Federal Government.
There are two major issues in that last paragraph that raise the limits to which a
citizen in Los Angeles can dedicate themselves to being “Green”. First off, over 50% of the
citizens in Los Angeles County do not own their home. Secondly, over 50% pay higher than
the standard rent to income ratio. If a renter does not own their roof, they cannot install a PV
system. And the average renters in Los Angeles do not have the extra income to spend on
being green. Due to the high costs of current “green” options, the average citizen in Los
Angeles, renting or owning, does not have the necessary income to invest. Purchasing
items such as fuel efficient cars, Solar Panels, new washing machines, new refrigerators or
stoves, new air conditioning or heating units cost large amounts of money. They cannot be
bought on moral issues alone; they must be bought when the preceding item finally breaks
down. Often out of financial issues even when necessity dictates, used items are purchased
to save money. In most of the items previously listed, the Renter has no choice in what they
receive because the items are owned by the building owner. The average citizen has little
choice in the way they conserve energy. Outside of the 3 “free” methods of reduce,
recycling & reuse, there are very few purchases such as CFL light bulbs and other small
items available.
74

This lack of choice is what drove the initial thesis concept of providing a new method
of providing renewable options to the consumer who is restricted by their living situation.
Why would an apartment building install Solar Panels or Solar Hot Water heaters if the
tenant is paying for the gas and electric? The building owner lives off of the creed “if it ain’t
broke, don’t fix it.” This concept cannot be thought of in a macro view, it lacks total
perspective. To the building owner, they get paid, the renter gets power and nobody has
any legal right to make any kinds of changes. The owner is only obligated to provide
sanitary living conditions, not green power. If they install Solar Panels onto their building,
where is their payback? They cannot charge the tenant more money to offset the costs and
they are looking at a 25 year payback. This is far outside the average “flip” time for a
building remodel. A developer looks for immediate return and financial gain over moral gain,
in the private market. In the public assisted buildings though you see a different trend. The
larger tax incentives, better rate tariffs and push from the government has implemented
Solar into many assisted living, elderly and other public works projects. This is where you
see the Million Solar Roofs start to evolve. Ironically it is not evolving in the sector where the
citizen can afford Solar for their homes, or in the areas where citizens make average income
and pay large rents, but it is for those who are in need of government assistance. Those
with the least money and least power are seeing the greatest benefits. In a way, it can be
looked at as the meek shall inherit the earth.
In order to further understand the options behind the thesis concept, we will look at
different forms of Solar Power available today. From there it will become more apparent
where different forms of Power Generation will become successful, and where they will not
work as well.

75

Chapter 5: Solar Power - History

Figure 6: Solar Panels (unreferenced image)
Photovoltaic (PV) power has been promoted since the 1970’s as the emerging
renewable energy source. The first phase of Solar Power began with the creation of single
crystal, single layer p-n junction diode silicon wafer solar cells. These cells proved to be the
start of a new wave in power generation. The relatively endless supply of energy from the
sun along with zero emissions and minimal environmental impact makes PV ideal as an
environmental choice. The added benefit to Solar Power is the direct relationship of our
energy consumption to the sun’s energy production. In hot climates, where the electricity
use is dominated by air conditioning, Solar Power has increased benefits. When the Sun is
the most powerful, we use the most electrical power. Additionally, when the Sun is the most
powerful, PV will produce the most energy. Therefore PV produces peak energy when
consumers use peak demand for energy, balancing each other out. The added benefit is the
PV array being directly connected to the consumer. Being directly connected to the
structure eliminates the transmission loss issues associated with solar power. It also
reduces the stress on the grid itself, which reduces infrastructure costs to the Power
Company. Still, the drawbacks lie in price and efficiency of the product. In other words, the
cost of production is large and energy generation capability is small.
76

Figure 7: Example of “Local PV” Solar Panel installation (Powerlight, 2007)
Even at current technologies “Local PV”, or PV that is installed on or near to the
structure that is using the power, in California, has a rate of payback of well over 25 years
(Chen, 2006). This rate of return includes the current Government funding and tax
incentives offered to the consumer. In Germany, government funding on the purchase and
installation of PV Solar Panels can bring the cost down from $8/watt to $4/watt. Government
and Utility sponsored Solar Power rate tariffs can bring the power cost down from 20¢ per
kWh to 10¢-12¢ per kWh. A Solar Panel with these incentives can have a rate of return of 5
to 7 years (Solarbuzz, 2008).
Since the views and stand-point on the importance of alternative energy are not
shared with all nations equally, and not even with all states within a single nation. This
report looks directly at the capitol financial costs, avoiding cost reductions due to
government help. It is recognized that Government funding is a significant source of life in
77

renewable energy. Since PV first became available on the market it has gone through
phases of growth and near extinction. Historically, the growth curve is fueled by government
credits and tax incentives to the buyer. When those funds have not been available, the PV
market has slipped behind due to the extremely cheap cost of coal powered energy
generation and other sources.
Table 11: Solar Panel Payback @ different install costs (Solarbuzz, 2008)

There are three main types of Photovoltaic manufacturing processes used in the
market; mono-crystalline, poly-crystalline and amorphous. Mono-crystalline (c-Si) is the
process of refining silicon into cylindrical ingots, using the Czochralski process (Wikepedia,
2008), which is a crystalline growth method. The cylindrical ingot is then sliced into singe
cell wafers and applied to the array. The benefit is a 25% efficiency rating, which is the
78

highest possible for silicon due to the pure form (Seale, 2003). The largest drawback is the
expensive and difficult process to obtain the c-Si wafer. After that there are issues with
circular cells on a square array causing a reduced square footage per panel. This led to the
development of poly-crystalline (poly-Si) wafers. This is a similar process, but using less
refined methods. Instead of creating a single large ingot using an expensive crystalline
growth method, Poly-Si uses molten silicon and cools it carefully to create square ingots.
This process is much more economical, but results in 20% efficiency rating due to the cells
being molten and cooled together, instead of grown in perfect alignment (Seale, 2003). Like
the c-Si process, there is also sawing of ingots which results in material loss (in the form of
silicon dust from the saw blade cutting the ingot). The benefits are the reduced production
costs and the square shape allows for optimum coverage on a rectangular array (Wikepedia,
2008). The final method called amorphous silicon, or “ribbon technology”, is the process of
using molten silicon and drawing it, or applying it, in a thin coat straight onto a cheaper
surface. This process reduces any waste, which was seen in upwards of 20% during the
cutting of the silicon ingots (DOE & EERE, 2005). Again the less refined process does result
in lower efficiencies, but the reduction in production costs makes this an amazing competitor
(Wikepedia, 2008) (Seale, 2003). As a note, According to NREL, the typical commercial
solar cell in today’s market has an efficiency of 15% (NREL, 2007).
The two largest advantages, which are being explored now, are amorphous silicon’s
ability to be applied onto flexible surfaces and specific shapes. Many of the flexible thin film
products that are emerging are also made to be very resilient. These products can be
dropped, thrown or stepped on and have no adverse effects. That fact immediately drops
the shipping costs of the product dramatically. Beyond that, installation will also go down in
cost since labor can be less skilled and the chance for damage is low. A common use
emerging for this product type is the “tract home” roof shingle. Many companies are using
79

these resilient materials and producing roof shingles that match the style and look of classic
masonry shingles. While all of these technologies range from tried and true to new and
exciting, there is still the common denominator of high price and low efficiency (compared to
alternative conventional and renewable sources).
Table 12: CPUC & CEC PV Cost Evaluations, in 2004 Dollars (Chen, 2006)

The table above shows the cost of PV modules, Non-module costs (labor) and the
total installed cost. To show a relatively accurate price comparison, the costs from 1998-
2003 were all adjusted to meet inflation rates, and to be displayed as “2004 dollars”. This
allows the graph to show the declining rate in Installation cost for California over the last 7
years. To clarify the graphs, the yellow line and blue line are the final installation costs of the
CEC funding program and CPUC funding program. The yellow and blue bar graphs are the
costs of labor for CEC and CPUC. The Black line is the actually cost of the PV module itself.
Currently California is offering a rebate of $2.80 per watt and a tax credit of 7.5%. In 2006,
in Northern California the pre-rebate cost per watt was $9.51 per AC watt. The installation
prices ranged from $8.98 per watt to 10.32 per watt for top 10 Nor Cal cities (NorCal, 2006).
80

In Southern California the typical customer is looking to pay $7 to $11 per AC watt, while the
commercial and municipal are looking to pay $7 to $9 per AC watt.
The Solar PV market in Los Angeles may be the wave of the future in the United
States, but we are still far beyond many European countries. The American Solar
infrastructure, in general, is less proactive with rebates, tax credits and rate tariffs than other
countries. But what is further behind is the State and Federal Governments assistance to
the individual resident. The single person is not as valuable as the massive company.
There is a good argument; their focus looks to massive purchases coming from large
budgets that will help push the industry. With a fixed budget they have targeted the money
spenders, and still set aside funding for the smaller spenders. An interesting question would
be if the Residential and Commercial customer would receive the same benefits (higher rate
and higher tax credits) would that necessarily cause a larger financial strain? The larger
corporations, like Chevron Energy would still install the same amount of Solar Panels, but on
their own buildings. There is the possibility that they may even install more Solar because
they would be selling the electricity to themselves and could lower the cost from a profit rate
to a retail rate. The individual person could also install Solar with greater payback, and may
ever sell their roof to larger corporations, much like LACCD has done. They could choose
between purchasing power from the Utility or from a Private Provider, at a competitive price,
who wishes to “lease” their roof space. Since the common factor in this equation so far is
the large corporation, or the big money spender, there is a chance you would not necessarily
see a significant increase in solar installations. Currently there are plenty of non-profit and
government buildings that can lease rooftop space to large companies. Since there is
currently no supply/demand issues with roof space, then it can be assumed that it is not a
significant market source. So by inserting more available rooftops, you would not change
the amount of solar installations. You would only allow the single home to become more
81

competitive in the future market. In fact, this could encourage Apartment buildings to enter
the market giving more renewable options to the renters. But, as mentioned in the earlier
chapter, the single homeowner or home renter does not enjoy the options that the larger
entities have. That is why more options are needed for renewable power.

Figure 8: 12 mW Gut Erlasee Solar Park in Germany, panels by SunPower
Another approach to PV is to install it in a Centralized facility. A Centralized facility
is designed to incorporate numerous PV arrays in one isolated location, all of which are
calibrated to receive maximum sunlight and operate at maximum efficiency. Centralized
facilities are located where the weather conditions provide optimum Solar Exposure, relative
to the region. A centralized facility also does not have the drawbacks of neighboring
buildings casting shadows, roof angles that tilt the PV away from the sun, or even trees that
cast shadows on the array. From an energy generation point of view, centralized facilities
are optimal. They also have the advantage of holding an entire system in one location,
allowing infrastructure to be specifically engineered to gain optimum returns and use the
82

least amount of material. Local PV would require equipment to receive and convert power to
be plugged into the system for each unit. Centralized facilities can reduce the amount of
equipment and increase the efficiency through “powering in bulk”. It also makes
maintenance less of an issue since the entire facility is centrally located and parts can be
stored on site. The drawback to them is their isolated location. Due to the high cost of PV
arrays, the amortized energy generation costs also increase proportionally. As mentioned
earlier, the manufacturing and installation price of PV Electricity in the United States can be
anywhere from $7-$12/watt. Compared to its main competitor, coal at an installation cost of
$2.10/watt, there is a 600% price difference. In the United States the price of energy does
not take into account the price of the pollution it creates. There are no additional taxes or
tariffs added onto the price of coal to compensate for the environmental problems it causes.
Another concern with power generation is Transmission loss. Transmission loss is
not seen as an issue of distance from source to end user, which would seem to make sense.
It is viewed like the electrical grid is a large pond of water. There is no “higher” end and
“lower” end of the water. The entire pond is seen as being all at the same level. So in the
same sense, transmission loss is not viewed as having on end compared to another, it is an
absolute number describing the whole. In the author’s opinion, the effects of deregulation
expose a major hole in this thinking. Even though the grid was viewed as a whole, there
was definitely a separation between southern and northern California. So viewing the grid
as a whole is what led to many “choke off” issues with deregulation. Viewing transmission
loss as a whole may lead to “choke off” issues with the progression of new Solar Power
being inserted into the system. The transmission losses in United States in 1995 were an
average of 7.2% (U.S. CCTP, 2005). It is estimated that in today’s market, there is an
average of 9.3% Transmission loss in the United States. Of this, 60% of Transmission
losses came from the power lines and 40% came from the transformers. What this means is
83

that for every 1000 kilowatts produced, 907 kilowatts reach the consumer. So if you have
two power plants, one coal and one PV both generating electricity in a remote location, they
both send power with equal transmission losses. If the Coal plant generates 1,000 kilowatts
at $2.10 per watt, and loses 93 kilowatts during transmission, it suffers a financial loss of
$195.30. If the Solar plant generates 1,000 kilowatts, and loses 93 kilowatts during
transmission, it suffers a financial loss of $1,395.00. That is an additional cost of $1,000 per
kilowatt to produce and provide Solar Energy to the consumer, compared to coal. This is the
primary reason why Coal has kept such a tight grip on the energy market since 1885, when it
surpassed wood as the nation’s number one supply of energy.

Figure 9: Los Angeles to Daggett 110 miles by air, 126 miles by highway
84

As mentioned many times Centralized Solar Plants are located in isolated areas that
have higher solar gain than the cities or towns they serve. In the case of Los Angeles, this is
very true. From Los Angeles, CA to Daggett, CA the distance between these two locations
by highway is 126 miles and approx. 110 miles by air. The amount of Solar Radiation
though has an average increase of 17.9% (EnergyPlus, 2007) (KyoceraSolar, 2007).
According to EnergyPlus, Los Angeles has an annual Solar Radiation of 1,044 kWh/m
2
.
Daggett, CA where Solar Two is built has an annual Solar Radiation of 1,242 kWh/m
2
. The
difference between the two locations is in increase of 18.9%. To confirm this increase in
solar gain, it was double-checked against the Kyocera PV Calculator website. This website
asks the user to input the location data and it automatically generates a base case scenario
for installing 3,000 kW of solar panels on a residential (or commercial) location. For Los
Angeles, Kyocera predicted the 3,000 kW panels would produce 4,782 kWh/year. For
Daggett, CA (listed as the county of Nebo Center, CA) Kyocera predicted the 3,000 kW
panels would produce 5,591 kWh/year. From Los Angeles to Daggett, CA there is an annual
energy generation increase of 16.9%. So an isolated, centralized plant in Southern
California would produce approx. 17.9% more energy, and in a worst case scenario suffer up
to 10% transmission loss. When the transmission losses are calculated out, the overall gain
for Solar Panel in Daggett, CA is 6.9% (above Los Angeles).
85

Figure 10: Kyocera PV Calculator - Los Angeles & Daggett, Ca (KyoceraSolar, 2007)
To become a competitor in today’s energy market Solar Power needs to increase its
efficiency, optimize locations, optimize installations and reduce its manufacturing costs. This
would result in a reduced cost of annual power costs allowing it to compete with other power
sources. The current technologies of “thin film” amorphous solar cells have been in
production for nearly 10 years and have constantly attacked the “battle of the bill”.
Unfortunately the raw cost of PV arrays still does not compete with alternative methods of
power. PV has too many inherent cost issues, starting with expensive core materials and
86

ending with fragile surfaces and complex components. It currently appears that solar is
looking to make an impact with their durable new materials, but they have substantially not
reached the market yet.

87

Concentrated Solar Power

Figure 11: Solar One / Solar Two CSP Tower in Daggett, CA
Another method of harnessing the Sun’s energy called Concentrated Solar Power
was developed in the 1980’s. Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants are developed
around the same principals as some Solar Thermal Water Heaters. Using a series of
reflective devices, or a solar array of mirrors, the Sun’s rays are redirected from many
locations to a single, focused point. This focal point, now heated with the power of “multiple
suns”, increases the temperature of the liquid stored in the focal point, or “receiver”. As the
liquid becomes increasingly hot in the receiver, it reaches temperatures that are able to run a
steam turbine that generates electricity. This method of generation is initially cheaper than
PV generation, but is only applicable in certain climates. Due to the high temperature
demands needed, the solar exposure needs to be very strong and very consistent.
88

Table 13: CSP Resource Potential

Table 14: 2001 Cost Estimations of PV Pants vs. CSP Plants (Quaschning, 2001)

89

As seen in the first table, only a specific portion of the United States has the proper
conditions to develop CSP Plants (6-9 rating). While in the area, roughly 15% to 20% of the
country, there is a smaller portion with great to optimal Solar Exposure (7-9 rating).
Currently both New York and New Jersey are both pushing to increase their participation in
Solar Power. But they could not invest in Concentrated Solar Power due to the overall lack
of Solar Exposure, and the inconsistent weather conditions. When heat from the sun is
insufficient, there are many problems that arise in a CSP plant. When the sun is gone for an
extended period, then much of the engineered elements have issues that can be anywhere
from minimal to critical. But PV can run continually no matter what the weather conditions
are. When the sun comes back out, the PV panel operates again just as it did the last time
the sun was out. Location is critically important for CSP plants; to the point of the plants
fluids literally freezing (solidifying) if they drop below 428° F, while PV only suffers a
decrease in power generation, even if they are exposed to snow and ice.
As noted earlier, the cost of PV installations is at a price where the competition has
a great upper hand. But, in the second table, as of 2001 CSP power is nearly half the price
of PV plant power. This is an increased incentive to use CSP over PV power. There are
higher returns on investments while needing less help from government funding, tariff rate
adjustments and tax credits. This has an additional incentive of making the CSP Plant a
more consistent development, both technology wise and financially. As seen with PV, when
government funding runs out, so does the PV business. So the potential for PV to take a
development downswing are far greater than CSP. The information behind these statistics is
all thanks to the first Concentrated Solar Plant built over 30 years ago. This plant, Solar
One, was designed and built as a test subject for a possible new direction in the Solar Power
industry.
90

“Solar 1” was the first large scale, major output Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
Tower built. It was located in the Southern California desert in the city of Daggett, CA. It
was completed in 1981 and was operational from 1982 to 1986. Solar 1 was designed to
prove that a 10 megawatt CSP Tower Plant could work and provide reliable energy. Its
design was based on a single tower in the middle of a field of 1818 mirrors. Each mirror,
called a Heliostat, is 430 sq ft in surface area and they are all reflecting the Sun’s rays to a
single focal area around the peak of the tower. After proven successful the plant was
closed, and then in 1995 it was developed into “Solar 2”. This new design tested refined
engineering designs, updated heliostats and most importantly a new method of heat storage
to allow for power generation during cloudy periods and even into the evening. The major
significance of Solar 1 and Solar 2 were the scientific methods and theories tested and
resolved in its operation. This model had set the pace for the CSP Tower Plants to follow.
With today’s technologies and refinement, there are CSP Tower Plants, such as
PS10 in Spain, which produce an output of 11 megawatts with 24 hour generation capability.
Looking further into the future is Brightsource Energy, Inc CSP Tower complex in Hesperia,
CA. This facility will have a 400 Megawatt capacity using 3 towers, two of which will operate
at 100 mW and the third at 200 mW. This location was chosen due to weather conditions as
well as close proximity to transmission lines. It is scheduled to begin construction in 2009
and finish by 2011. It is the first project of this type to be built since 1991. Another
innovation in design has been the CSP Parabolic Trough design. Instead of a centralized
tower, these systems use long rows of parabolic mirrors, like troughs, that focus light to a
tube containing liquid. That liquid then heats the generators creating electricity. These fields
have alternate appeal due to their relative simplicity and their ability to grow at seemingly
endless boundaries.
91

Figure 12: Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) 3 main Typologies (Volker, 2003)
There are three main forms of concentrated solar power. The first, as discussed is a
Power Tower, second is Parabolic Trough and third is a Disk/Engine (parabolic dish). The
Disk/Engine is a similar concept to a radar dish. It aims the dish at the sun, and then the
mirrors, in a parabolic shape, reflect the sun’s rays to a single focal point. The heat collected
at that focal point is then used to run a sterling engine, which generates energy. This paper
does not go into detail on the third option. Even though the parabolic dish has the highest
efficiencies, its cost per watt can be nearly triple CSP plants. The following tables show the
efficiency rates, typical operating levels, advantages and disadvantages of the 3 systems.
As seen in the table, efficiencies vary between the three options rather drastically. Parabolic
Trough has a lower maximum and peak efficiency due to restrictions set by the oil based
heat transfer fluid. But it has a major advantage of lower infrastructure start-up and
expansion costs. It also has reliable cost estimation, which CSP towers do not have. CSP
towers have the extreme disadvantage of high startup costs, but lower expansion costs. The
92

main disadvantage is the in-ability to accurately project a budget for projects, within
Proforma estimation standards. Proforma is the estimation of a development project from
land acquisition to construction costs to end user profits for a specific amount of time. These
documents, in simple terms, show the cost to buy, cost to build, and the amount of profit that
will be made in a certain time frame. As will be seen in the study, Solar Tres had an analysis
created for Daggett, Ca with a construction cost of $77-$87 million US Dollars (USD) in
2003, which would have been 73 million € in 2003. The Solar Tres project is currently
scheduled for construction in Spain for a final amount of $292 million USD in 2007, which
would have been 190 million € in 2007 (SolarPaces, 2007). Even with inflation in the United
States, the $87 million in 2003 USD would be nearly $100 million in 2007 USD (153 million
€). So in 2007 USD, there is a construction cost increase of 292% of the projected cost.
Suspiciously though, another document states that the project only costs around 21 million
€, which is $32 million USD (EU, 2007). But that document, even though produced in 2007,
has shown other calculation errors and data errors. Another project, PS10 is listed about 14
million € cheaper than the total cost documented on many other websites, including an
official “final report” study (EC5th, 2006). The price, even though it does seems very low,
does sound more accurate than the other figures. The further into the research though,
there seem to be two numbers associated with a project. One is the cost of building the
project, the second is the total investments in the project. None of the case studies explain
what the “investment” cost is. But in all cases except Solar Tres, the two figures are clearly
stated separately. In all of the case studies though, the “investment” totals vary from millions
to billions. It is not clear which number is represented with Solar Tres. Unfortunately the
costs cannot be compared to PS10 because the two projects have the same initial concept
of CSP, but they have completely different engineering systems. Considering PS10 was an
experiment in a new system that would reduce cost, its figures cannot be compared.
93

Figure 13: Analysis of CSP Tower & CSP Trough Energy (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)
But still, most impressive about both CSP Tower and CSP Parabolic Trough is the
ability for nighttime generation. This is not available through Parabolic Dish or PV Solar
Arrays. With the CSP Tower and Trough, the Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) is recycled back
into the storage systems at night to conserve the energy. The sun’s power can therefore be
harnessed and stored for cloudy day and / or nighttime use. Solar One used water for its
HTF and could not use nighttime storage. Solar Two though developed this concept by
using molten salt for its HTF, which started producing power during the early evening.
Current technologies have perfected this method to have from 13 to 16 hours of thermal
storage. During these 16 hours, the sun can set in the sky which causes less solar gain,
then be gone all night, and come up again to re-heat the system in the afternoon. The two
major advantages to this is 24 hour generation, but more importantly the ability to keep the
HTF at a high temperature, preventing freezing. If the HTF would drop below its freezing
94

point (428° F) then it would “freeze” inside the system, causing major damage and plant
failure.
Table 15: Three Major typologies of CSP (Greenpeace, 2005)

95

Table 16: Sunlight, CSP Thermal Storage and Output Power Chart (DOE)

Table 17: Characteristics of Three Major CSP Typologies (GCEP, 2006)

Table 18: Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) Characteristics

96

Concentrated Solar Power: Solar One

Figure 14: Solar One / Solar Two - Daggett, Ca
Brief Description: Solar One was developed as a test engine for a new form of Solar
Thermal power. The Project itself was more of a “test dummy” than an actual “power plant”.
It was developed to test ideas and concepts. In its lifetime, Solar One only generated
38,000 megawatt hours. Throughout its lifespan it was constantly being re-configured,
upgraded, altered and or fixed. The most important part of its existence became the CSP
Tower and Parabolic Trough plants that followed, most importantly being “Solar Two”.

(DOE Su

Ta
unlab, 2000) (
able 19: Solar
(Sargent & Lu

r Power Proje
undy, 2003) (E
ect Profile: So
EERE, 1997 p
olar One
pp. 5-1) (EnergyPlus, 2007
97
7)

98

Solar One was a test run facility built primarily by the Department of Energy,
providing 44% of the total funding, in combination with the Utility Companies of Southern
California and private investors. It was born through the engineers at Sandia Labs in New
Mexico. Prior to Solar One, in 1976, Sandia had been working on the National Solar
Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF). This was a smaller scale, 5 megawatt facility. It consisted of
one 63 meter tall receiver with 222 computer controlled heliostats on its north side. The field
was a 360 degree mirror array, which reflected the sun from all sides. This field design is
capable of supporting power outputs that were far beyond the actual numbers ever
produced. The calculations said a theoretical 500 mW plus could be generated with a field
array of this design, assuming the mirrors optics were optimal, the tower engineering was
optimal and optimal sunlight was available. But for any CSP plant 100 mW or less, a north
field was proven to be optimal. This was due to the “effective reflective area” of the
heliostats.

Figure 15: Effective Reflector Area Diagram (Stine, 2004)
The mirrors to the north side of the facility reflected sunlight back at the receiver, at
an angle closer to 90°, or perpendicular to the sun angle (See Heliostat A in diagram). This
means there is a larger “effective reflector area”, or more square footage of sunlight is
99

reflected. The mirrors on the south side bounce the sun up to the receiver, at an angle
closer to 180°, or closer to being parallel to the sun (See Heliostat B in diagram). This
means there is a smaller effective reflector area, or less square footage of sunlight is
reflected. The significance of this issue is the amount of mirror produced compared to the
amount used. Heliostats are priced out at a “square foot” or “square meter” basis. This cost
takes into account everything from base attachment, to framework to mirror and the
motorized equipment used to track the sun. When the mirror on the south side reflects less
sun per square foot, due to the effective reflector area, a substantial amount of money is
lost. This project helped determine that in a CSP facility, the heliostat array can account for
up to 45% of the total cost of the project. So if the effective reflector area reduced the south
side mirrors output by 50%, and the south side mirrors account for 22.5% of the total project
cost (half the mirrors), then 12% of the project cost could be wasted. That is a simplified and
exaggerated explanation, but any percentage of waste is not acceptable when you are
competing with power sources such as coal and natural gas.

Figure 16: Heliostat Layout Pattern - Field Spacing Chart (Stine, 2004)
100

The reason a north side field cannot simply be added to is because of mirrors
shading each other, atmospheric transmittance and insufficient optics technology. Since the
heliostat array is designed off of angles, the further the away they get from the focal point,
the higher the focal point needs to be. When a tower height is decided, it is based on the
angles necessary to have minimal self-shading on the outer rows of heliostats. So if a tower
is built at a calculated height and you kept adding mirrors, they would start to be self-shaded
more and more per row. This again brings up the issue of maximum solar reflection due to
the cost per square foot. To counter this action, one method would be to increase the
distance between rows. So the inner rows, or radials, would be tighter together since they
are reflecting light at a higher angle up to the receiver. As you move out each radial reflects
at lower angles, so the radial spacing exponentially increases. The outer most radials would
have a significantly larger spacing compared to the inner radials, and as additional rows
would be added the distance from receiver would increase dramatically.
The second issue, atmospheric transmittance is the effects due to distance from the
receiver. The further away you are from an object, the more interference there is. The
maximum visible distance on a clear day is 23km (14.29 miles) and on a hazy day is 5km
(3.10 miles). Atmospheric transmittance at 1 km (.62 miles) reduces visibility at a 10% loss
on a clear day and 25% loss on a hazy day. Atmospheric transmittance at 2 km (1.25 miles)
reduces visibility at a 17% loss on a clear day and 43% loss on a hazy day. But more
importantly when looking at the distance factors is the quality of optics. When the mirrors
are closer to the tower, they have a larger margin of error. Since the light is reflected a short
distance, it can have a lower precision and still hit the receiver. Mirrors are placed at further
distances need to have their precision increased. Since the reflected light is traveling
greater distances, even slight errors in angles can result in large amounts of light lost. Also,
if the light is not focused correctly it may dissipate by the time it reaches the receiver. As
101

mentioned before, the tolerances on CSP and other renewable energies are much tighter
than any other form of power due to the extreme competition set by the low price of coal
fired power. Even though 5% losses may seem acceptable in most cases, they can make or
break a Solar Project.
Solar One was never consistently operational. It was officially commissioned in
1981, and underwent a series of experiments and testing which required it to be operational.
But there was a great deal of time, in between experiments, where it was not fully
operational. Due to the experimental nature of the project, it was constantly undergoing
maintenance and upgrades either due to design flaws, new experimental equipment, or
simply parts breaking down due to the intense temperatures and pressure conditions. The
project though did prove successful on a scientific basis. Its use as a testing facility led to
the growth of an industry. One of the greatest innovations to come out of Solar One’s
failures was the thermal storage system. The next generation in the Solar Thermal Plant
took on so many alterations and upgrades, that the name was also changed. Solar Two, the
next generation in power set the benchmark for the CSP technology boom.

102

Concentrated Solar Power: Solar Two

Figure 17: Solar One / Solar Two - Daggett, Ca
Brief Description: Solar Two was an important upgrade made to the Solar One test facility.
Like Solar One, Solar Two was a test facility. A new array of heliostats was added, but the
most important feature was the re-engineering and addition of molten salt heat transfer fluid
(HTF) in replacement of the existing water HTF system. This allowed for higher power
generation at lower temperatures due to the greater heat transfer properties of the molten
salt. Most importantly though, it allowed for nighttime and cloudy day power generation from
the stored heat in the molten salt HTF, which the water HTF was not capable of providing.

(DOE Su
Ta
unlab, 2000) (
able 20: Solar
(Sargent & Lu
r Power Proje
undy, 2003) (E
ect Profile: So
EERE, 1997 p
olar Two
pp. 5-1) (EnergyPlus, 2007
103
7)

104

Figure 18: Solar Two Diagram (Nanopedia, 2008) (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)
Solar Two took great leaps beyond its earlier sibling, Solar One. Construction
began on the project in 1992 and was completed in 1995. It began operations in 1996 and
was running until 1999. After this 3 year mark operations had been completed because all
data and testing had been finished. The engineering upgrades to this project make it stand
out as a turning point. The first noticeable addition was an array of heliostats. 108 new
heliostats at 95 m2 each were added to the western, southern and eastern side. This new
array was added to test new tracking equipment as well as new heliostat constructing and
pricing. The new tracking systems reduced their parasitic load, therefore reducing the
amount of power needed to track the sun. Due to the high cost of the heliostat itself, new
methods of design were needed to gain more reflective surface at lower cost. The
introduction of 95 m2 heliostats reduced overall costs by pushing the structural limits of the
heliostat framework. Since the mirrors are extremely light and the largest structural loads
are from high winds, engineers tested a drastic increase in reflective surface per heliostat.
The new heliostats in Solar Two proved that they could double and now triple the heliostat
mirror area and still only increase the heliostat structure and tracking system. Currently in
105

new projects, heliostats range in size from 110 m2 to 120 m2. This gave an incredible cost
reduction per heliostat, since now a facility needs half of the concrete footings, posts,
tracking equipments and electrical connections. This combined with the updated tracking
motors result in a huge drop in parasitic electrical loads.

Figure 19: Solar Two Molten Salt Storage Tanks (DOE Sunlab, 2000)
But the most important development in Solar Two was the modification to a Molten
Salt Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) system. This came after the failures of Solar One’s water
HTF system. After testing they found that not only would the water cool down rapidly at
night, but even when cloud cover came the plant would stop producing energy. The molten
salt though has properties that allow it to maintain temperature during cloudy periods and
even nighttime periods. Of course, this is also made possible through the salt storage
system and advanced engineering. This phase of the projects goals where to:
“• Simulate the design, construction, and operation of the first commercial plants.
• Validate the technical characteristics of a molten-salt plant.
• Improve the accuracy of economic projections for commercial projects by
increasing the database of system performance, and capital, operating, and
maintenance costs.
• Collect, evaluate, and distribute information to foster interest in commercialization
of power towers.
• Stimulate interest in forming a commercial consortium.” (DOE Sunlab, 2000)
106

During its operation, Solar Two was able to provide constant power for 153 straight
hours (nearly a week). It also produced 1633 Megawatt hours over a 30 day period. This
was over its projected goal of 1500 Megawatt hours. Due to increased efficiencies the field
and receiver were able to generate more power than previously achieved. The additional
power produced brought Solar Two’s rating up from 10 mW to a record high of 11.6 mW
(DOE Sunlab, 2000). The project also proved reliability by being operational during large
stretches, and only having problems when consecutive days of cloudy weather caused loss
of power due to loss of solar radiation. Statistically, the receiver itself had an efficiency
rating of 88% (86% during windy conditions). This issue of wind was the only design
problem that could not be fixed by engineers. During very heavy wind periods the receiver
itself was unable to startup. This left a large range of improvement to bring solar collection
up to higher ratings in the upper 90 percentile. The storage system though was rated at
97% efficiency, which was the design standard (DOE Sunlab, 2000).

Figure 20: Solar Two contributing Organizations (DOE Sunlab, 1998)
Solar Two was very similar to Solar One in many ways. It was a combined effort by
multiple organizations, from government programs to private and municipal utilities to private
107

companies that were investing in a renewable future. It was also similar in its method of
constant re-design, upgrade, build. From the start of the project’s construction and operation
constant modifications took place. Many issues with startup, heat issues, piping and
engineering caused the plant to be non-operational for over 1 full year. The project was
successful as an experimental facility and accomplished many goals over its lifespan. In
1999 when the experimentation was finished and all data was gathered, Solar Two was
decommissioned. Soon after in 2001, UC Davis started using the Heliostat Array and tower
as a space telescope. The Air Cherenkov Telescope uses a portion of the heliostat array to
reflect cosmic charged particles or gamma rays that have hit he atmosphere and produced
secondary particles that emit “Cherenkov Light”. This light is emitted for less than 10
billionths of a second, so to gather images the light is reflected from multiple heliostats into a
photographic receiver they have mounted onto the tower. Currently, the school uses 144
heliostats at 44 m2 each, the smaller heliostats from Solar One. In total, Davis uses 6,000
m2 of reflective surface, which is only 7% of the total available reflective surface at Solar
Two.

108

Concentrated Solar Power: Solar Tres

Figure 21: The 120 m2 SENER heliostat under testing at the PSA (SolarPaces, 2007)
Brief Description: Solar Tres is a project currently under construction (according to a March
of 2007 report, it was scheduled to start end of 2007). The initial design was based on the
testing and results found in the Solar Two project. It was a conceptual design that was
created and cost estimated to be built in Daggett, Ca in 2003, to continue the Solar One &
Solar Two legacy. The project was instead bought and re-located to Spain, where its
documented price had skyrocketed to nearly 300% the original estimates. Further
investigation showed that there are multiple prices documented, and none of which appear
to be accurate. It is a 17 megawatts facility, and is able to generate nighttime power. Since
the project is under construction, there is not much data on what new techniques are being
tested in the facility. Unlike its predecessors, it will primarily be a “Power Plant”.

(Mar
Ta
rtín, 2007) (So
able 21: Solar
olarPaces, 20
r Power Proje
007) (Sargent
ect Profile: So
t & Lundy, 20
olar Tres
03) (EnergyP Plus, 2007)
109

110

Figure 22: Solar Tres 3D Layout using Sensol
A CSP simulation computer program developed by Sener (Ortega, 2007?)
Before describing the Solar Tres project, the author wants to mention a second time
that the financial data for this project does not seem to be accurate. Different documented
funding amounts, ranging from 20 million € to over 190 million €, have been found in
different creditable sources. These amounts all appear to be accounting for the construction
costs of the project, but it is not specified. But in any case, every funding amount given is
either drastically lower or exponentially higher than what the author would assume is
accurate. Based on a relatively similar CSP Tower Plant pricing of 35 million €, which was
the construction cost for PS10 in Spain, the author assumes this plant would cost around 50
million € to 70 million €. That is because the project is 17 mW (PS10 is 10 mW) and it also
uses a different HTF made of molten salt (PS10 uses saturated steam) and uses different
engineering technologies (PS10 operates under 40 bar pressure). Even at 70 million € the
megawatt cost is roughly 4.1 million € per mW, which is comparable to the other costs found.
111

Figure 23: Solar Tres Operation Diagram (Ortega, 2007?)
Solar Tres started out as the next generation CSP Tower project in Daggett, CA. Its
main purpose was to further the engineering of the CSP Tower create a fully functioning
Power Plant. It was to be the accumulation of Solar One and Two, but instead it was not
built in California. Solar Tres was picked up by a Spanish company, Sener, and planned to
be built in Andalusia, Spain. The first stages of Solar Tres began as a real-time investigation
on the feasibility of building a CSP Tower plant in Daggett, CA (Sargent & Lundy, 2003). In
2003, this report was published and contained data and calculations from two different
sources. The first source, SunLab is a government entity located in Washington, DC. The
second source, Sargent & Lundy LLC is a consulting group located in Chicago, IL. The two
organizations started by doing data analysis on the Solar One and Solar Two projects.
Then, they reviewed the up-to-date status of the equipment behind these projects and other
new technologies that had emerged since Solar Two was completed. The end result of this
was a comprehensive study of the existing projects, as well as a detailed review that brought
the data up to date. Then, the two ran simulations, made calculations and created
112

projections on the pros and cons, as well as construction of Solar Tres, Solar 50, Solar 100,
Solar 200 and Solar 220. Solar Tres was an anticipated project, while the other projects
were comparison models to show the benefits of increasing CSP Power Plant size, as well
as a complete section exploring alternative designs using trough systems. The entire
document researches a vast amount of data, information and produces an incredible amount
of data. The author recommends that any researcher in this field downloads and briefly
review the document.
Table 22: Solar Tres Cost Breakdown (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

113

Table 23: Heliostat Cost Estimate - Direct Capitol Cost (Sargent & Lundy, 2003 p. 262)

Soar Tres is approx. three times the size of Solar Two. The field uses 120 m2
heliostats instead of 95 m2. This was a cost effective measure that was first implemented in
Solar Two, and was then researched in the Sargent & Lundy document. As can be seen in
the chart above, by increasing the scale of the heliostat the price drops from $8 to $10 per
m2 (in 2007 $USD that is $9.17 to $11.47 per m2). Since the project employed more than
298,000 m2 of heliostat reflective surface, there is an overall estimated savings of nearly $3
million USD. Another goal of Solar Tres was to bring the field (collector) efficiency back up
to the standards of Solar One. Solar One has an efficiency of 58% due to its layout design.
Solar Two added new test mirrors which decrease the overall efficiency to 50.3%. This was
due to simply adding new mirrors to the outer rings of the field. As discussed earlier, the
atmospheric attenuation of light and interference reduce reflective efficiency as you increase
distance. Solar Tres has been estimated to achieve 56% efficiency (Sargent & Lundy,
2003). Also, the reduction of drive mechanisms due to less heliostat structures reduces
costs. The overall field layout design, as seen in Figure 22: Solar Tres 3D Layout using
Sensol, implements an improved array spacing to reduce self shading. The tower also has
been upgraded to be 130 m tall (30 m taller than Solar Two) and it has a complete 360°
receiver that reduces corrosion and stress from the heating process, as well as increase
efficiencies (Ortega, 2007?). The receiver itself has a base cost, as well as an efficiency
114

rating and maximum Thermal performance (rated in Mw-t, or Megawatt Thermal). Solar Two
was built with a 42 mW-t receiver at 34% efficiency. It cost of $9.1 Million USD in 1999, or
$11.5 million USD in 2007. Solar Tres built a 120 mW-t receiver @ 39% efficiency. It cost of
$14.7 million USD in 2004, or $16.45 million USD in 2007. With a price increase of 140%,
the receiver gained 285% capacity and 14% efficiency.
Table 24: Capitol Cost of Receiver (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

“Advanced header design, including new materials and nozzle designs, was
modified and parts deleted. This is the key reason in achieving cost reduction from
$8.33 per kW-t for Solar Two to $3.96 per kW-t for Solar Tres.” (Sargent & Lundy,
2003)

An upgraded HTF design, or a “molten salt loop”, reduces the number of valves and
streamlines the system to prevent issues and improve overall efficiency. The storage
system also has been increased in size to provide 15 hours of generation. It operates at
higher efficiencies due to upgraded pump designs and streamlined systems that eliminate
many “middle men” valves, pumps and storage units that were in Solar Two. Also to
eliminate fail-safe systems, a 43 mW steam generator has been equipped with a forced-
recirculation steam drum. Basically this means that instead of using mechanical systems to
pump out molten salt in the event of system failure, gravity will be used to drain Molten Salt
into safe storage units. This is accomplished simply by placing certain elements higher than
115

others, and letting gravity do its job. The steam turbine also operates at higher efficiencies
of 39.5% at design point and 38% annual, compared to 34% for Solar Two (Ortega, 2007?).
While having greater efficiencies, this new turbine is able to handle load changes and start /
stop periods that caused shut down and failure at Solar Two. The system in an overall
sense has improved instrumentation and electrical wiring. The technologies of today
overpower anything that were conceived in the 1980’s, and are much stronger than what
was available in 1999. In the end, the annual Solar to Electric efficiency in Solar Two was
7.6% and Solar Tres jumped to 13.7%, a 180% increase in efficiency.
“The large jump from Solar Two to Solar Tres is due to the use of (1) a steam
turbine with reheat, (2) a new collector field that performs to the level proven at Solar
One, and (3) miscellaneous small improvements due mostly to the increase in plant
size. S&L agrees with these projections, except uses a lower mirror cleanliness
estimate for Solar 220.” (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

Table 25: Cost Improvements (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

116

Table 26: Technology Assessment for 50 mW Plants (Ortega, 2007?)

Solar Tres was created as the next step in a generation of experimental CSP Tower
Plants. Even though it has moved and become a privately funded entity, it still carries the
same tradition of pushing the next step of Solar Power. The plant has increased efficiencies
by dramatic amounts, dropping the energy cost to nearly half of its predecessor, Solar Two.
It also has proven that the Molten Salt storage system is the most efficient means of energy
transfer and energy storage. With the advancements in field layout design and heliostat
design it is making headway into the most efficient field possible. As stated before, this
project has a very high investment cost attributed to it. One theory behind this large cost
could be the amount of time and money put into the project from the data processing in early
2003 by both SunLab and Sargent & Lundy.
117

Concentrated Solar Power: PS10

Figure 24: PS10 Aerial View
Brief Description: PS10 is the first phase of a large complex of Solar Power plants to
be built in Spain. This plant, producing 11 megawatts is only one part of the future 300
megawatt facility. It uses a new technology of pressurized water, or “saturated steam”, for
its heat transfer fluid. The saturated steam operates under lower temperatures at very high
pressure. The project was completed successfully and with apparently low initial
development costs. This plant produces 11 megawatts at a construction cost of $41 million
USD. That is $3.72 million per megawatt. Solar Tres is estimated to cost $17 million per
megawatt. This extreme cost difference though is suspicious. The project is being
constructed at unusually high costs. Even Solar One and Solar Two cost $14.4 million per
megawatt (in 2007 USD) and they included the cost of experimentation.

(E
Table 27: So
EC5th, 2006)

olar Power Pro
(ENS, 2007)
oject Profile:
) (EnergyPlus
PS10
s, 2007)
118

119

Figure 25: PS10 Diagram (EC5th, 2006)
PS10 is a project that took a long period of time to bring up from concept to
completion. In 1988, after the success of Solar One, the Spanish government issued a tariff
that promoted the creation of new sources of energy. In 1999, Abegona issued the first CSP
proposal that would become PS10. Abegona furthered the process by acquiring a 5 million
€ subsidy by the European Commission, which brought the proposal from concept to reality.
Abegona then created a new company called Solucar, which spearheaded the project. The
technology that separates PS10 from the other plants we have researched is the HTF and
Storage system. Unlike other projects, molten salt is not used. PS10 uses a form of
“saturated steam” which is steam that is pressurized to 40 bar and super heated. This
method had been tested on older projects and not received wide acclaim on its success. But
Solucar was determined to produce a new type of CSP plant that could be an alternative to
the molten salt. Many issues with molten salt make the medium difficult to work with and
difficult to control over the long term application. The medium has a very high freezing point,
which can result in complete plant failure if it solidifies inside the system. Additionally, the
120

medium is extremely corrosive and causes lifespan issues of maintenance. But, saturated
steam also brings up issues of high pressure engineering and low thermal capacity. The
project moved ahead and it seems to have found success in providing a new, cheaper
alternative for smaller CSP Plants with less energy demand (between 10 mW to 50 mW).
Table 28: PS10 Projected Costs (1 € = $0.91 rate 09/2001) (Romero, 2002)

These figures are based on a report from 2002, before construction began. This
projection is base on a different operating temperature of 465°C at 65 bar pressure. The
actual operating temperature is 250°C at 40 bar pressure. Even though they do not reflect
the accurate final cost of 35 million € it does give a good breakdown on cost of the PS10
plant. The heliostats in this report account for nearly 42% of the total project cost, which is
the average ratio.
121

Concentrated Solar Power: Nevada Solar One

Figure 26: Nevada Solar One, 350 Acre Facility (Solargenix)
Brief Description: this facility is the 3
rd
largest in the world, and the first CSP plant to
be built in 17 years. It produces an astounding 64 mW of power (75 mW peak) at the cost of
$260 million USD, which comes out to $3.46 million per mW (3 million € per mW). Of the
case study projects, this plant is so far the cheapest per megawatt in first cost. As is seen in
the next image, the plant is composed of large, parabolic .1km long troughs. This project is
important to Nevada’s goal to reach 20% renewable. It is one of a series of recent projects
in the area. After the project design and development had begun, the Spanish company
Acciona took interest and bought Solargenix Energy, who was developing the project. This
action shows that Solar Power investment is not limited to local regions, countries or even
continents. The profitability of Solar has brought Spain to Nevada.

(
Table
(Acciona, 200
29: Solar Pow
06) (Acciona,
wer Project P
2008) (Techn
Profile: Nevad
news, 2007) (
a Solar One
(EnergyPlus, 2007)
122

123

Figure 27: Parabolic Trough Diagram (DOE Sunlab, 2008)
The basic system for a Parabolic Trough receiver is similar to the CSP Tower
system. The main difference is the collector system and temperature range, which still
operate on the same principals are using different methods. The biggest difference is the
plants nearly zero thermal storage capacity. This facility has no storage tanks for extended
energy generation. It only is capable of producing 30 minutes of storage to help minimize
power loss during moments of cloud cover (Solarpaces, 2007). There is no documentation
found on why this facility did not invest in a storage system. There is documentation on the
company, Acciona, looking into storage for future US projects (Acciona, 2008).
The first following image is a full scale mockup of the parabolic trough was made
during the testing phases. For unknown reasons (probably copyright issues) even basic
details or basic dimensions of these receivers cannot be found. This photo gives a sense of
scale, notice the people being dwarfed in comparison. Also notice the full size bus, which is
about 2/3 the height. The following image is of the receiver that uses the focused light to
heat the mineral oil.
124

Figure 28: Nevada Solar One parabolic trough close up (Solargenix)

Figure 29: Parabolic Trough Receiver (DOE Sunlab, 2008)
125

PV Solar Power: Nellis Solar Power Plant

Figure 30: Ariel view of Nellis Solar Plant, just outside Las Vegas (Nellis AFB, 2008)
Brief Description: This project was built on government land in order to service Nellis Air
Force Base’s power needs. Nellis Air Force Base is located just northeast of Las Vegas,
NV. The project developer and owner is MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC. This Solar PV
Array, built on a simplified single axis heliostat system, provides 25% of Nellis AFB’s
required electricity. The innovation behind the 14.2 megawatt PV system itself is the
simplicity of design. The designer and manufacturer of the “T20 Tracker” system,
Sunpower, took a historically complicated and expensive device and purified it. By going
with an angled, single axis tracking mechanism, they found there would be minimal solar
exposure loss. This reduced the project cost, on the tracking system, allowing for more PV
to be purchased.
126

Figure 31: Close up of "Sunpower T20 Tracker" system at Nellis AFB (Nellis AFB, 2008)
This Large Scale Solar PV System cost $7 million USD per megawatt (4.5 million €
per megawatt). This comes in about $2.5 million USD higher than both PS10 and Nevada
Solar One. Unfortunately though, still study does not take into account facility and
maintenance costs during operation. Due to the extreme simplicity of the Nellis Array, it
would be assumed it will have a long lifespan at relatively minimal costs. But with the CSP
Plants, due to the nature of extreme heating and cooling, combined with complex
mechanical systems, it can be assumed that it will have a shorter lifespan with relatively high
maintenance costs. The research did not find the “calculated costs”, as an additional $/w
cost, for what the lifetime costs may be. That would be an interesting topic to explore in
future work. Another issue is their pollution levels. Due to the complex system for CSP, how
much more pollution will be created from lifetime (including startup) parts and labor?

Table 30: S
(Sunp
Solar Power P
ower, 2008) (

Project Profile
(Nellis AFB, 2
e: Nellis PV S
2008) (Energy
olar Power P
yPlus, 2007)
Plant
127

128

Chapter 6: Thesis Proposal
Power to the People
In the previous chapters we have reviewed the history of power, where it was and
where it appears to be heading in the near future. The research also looks at the recent
movement to alternative sources of power to create a more diverse national energy portfolio.
This movement initially started in the late 1970’s, but it settled and it was not until recently
when a tremendous upsurge in awareness as taken place. As can be seen in the research,
today is a point in time when green “awareness” and “intent” to be green are the only things
for sure. While legislation and politicians seem to be focusing on the problem, they are only
“focusing” and not “focused”. Even though programs have gained additional funding for
future research and increased project funding has been given to the public, little action has
yet taken place to resolve these issues.
From there the thesis has focused on Los Angeles as a “test case” for its
investigation. Los Angeles has historically been the leading contributor in the movement to
reduce all forms of pollution, including GhG's. By reviewing the history of California in the
arena of emission control, pollution reduction and construction standards you see a
consistent trend of leadership. While Los Angeles has been on the forefront in the United
States, they still fall behind many European Countries. But unlike the United States,
California has joined the goals of many European Countries to meet the Kyoto Protocol. So
there is a push in California to be, again, the United States leader in energy efficiency and
renewable power. Unfortunately though, these goals for solar power cannot be met by the
average citizen in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, due to 51% rental rates and medium
incomes that are absorbed by high rents, there are few options for the average citizen to
invest in “being green”. Reuse and reduce are two very unpopular ideas in Los Angeles for
129

many people in the high medium to upper class. These are concepts that are used mainly
by those who choose to reuse and reduce because it suites their financial options. “Recycle”
is a hot word in Los Angeles right now, and making a new comeback. It is making a
comeback in the marketing world, but not in the everyday practice of the common citizen.
Even after you have chosen whether or not to implement these 3 concepts, what is left?
When you don’t own your home, refrigerator or air conditioner, what investment options do
you have? When rents are $1,200 a month and income levels barely support your living
standards, how can someone afford a new fuel efficient car? Some theories point to
personal sacrifice. But to what point should a medium income citizen sacrifice when high
income citizens often sacrifice so little? These questions led the author to the first practical
investment option, CFL light bulbs. Outside of this small green alternative, it was difficult to
find other investments. The next affordable option found was when the “Green Power
Program” presented itself. This allowed a home or business to demand, from LADWP, that
their power be purchased from a green energy supplier. But due to past audits, the program
has nearly no budget dedicated to publicity. Additionally, this program is far behind other
programs in this State. The program also only affects areas of Los Angeles that are in the
LADWP territory. Santa Monica, for example, is in So Cal Edison’s territory and they do not
have this option. That cuts down Los Angeles’s economically viable renewable options even
further. Currently, the Green Investment options for a renter in Los Angeles County with
medium income are very limited. So how can an average citizen invest in being green?
An average citizen can invest in “Being Green” only if new investment options arise.
The proposed project for this thesis will be an isolated, centralized Solar Power Plant in
which individual Solar Arrays can per purchased by the common citizen. This is the concept
for the next renewable power investment option available for the common citizen. The initial
proposal involved a straight “one to one” comparison of purchasing a PV Solar Array and
130

installing it either locally or installing it as part of a large, centralized PV Solar Plant. The
case study research from chapter 5 showed that per megawatt, PV Plants cost nearly double
that of Concentrated Solar Power Plants (CSP). This resulted in an analysis of a CSP Plant
to be compared to both a Large PV facility and Local PV installations. The final proposed
project is an isolated, centralized CSP Plant in which the consumer can purchase the ability
to generate electricity in the form of 200 watt “shares”.
The next chapters will put the three solar power typologies into a real life case study
situation. Currently, Catalina Island has asked USC to propose new sources of renewable
power to supply the entire island with all of its electricity needs. In response to both the
thesis concept, and this request by Catalina, a case study of the island will be done. After
the existing infrastructure is documented, the study will first look at installing Local PV solar
to each home and business. The final financial calculations will then be broken down to a
“per resident” cost as well as a per watt cost. The study will then simulate the installation of
a CSP Tower plant on the Island to provide enough power for the entire Island. All financial
calculations will be broken down to a “per resident” cost as well as per watt cost in order to
provide a consistent financial figure to use in Chapter 8.
The final aspect of Chapter 7 will investigate the “recycling” of the Solar Two facility
located in Daggett, CA. Since UC Davis only uses a fraction of the Solar Two infrastructure,
the study will examine the feasibility of removing unused heliostat equipment and re-
installing them on Catalina Island. The operational efficiency and the transporting of the
heliostat fields will be the primary focus of the study. Since the field typically cost 42% of the
entire project there is the possibility to save large amounts of money by recycling the usable
systems. When completed, the possible cost reductions will be applied to the financial
calculations to get a estimated “per resident” cost, as well as a per watt cost.
131

To compare these modern technology solutions to existing concepts, building
energy simulation computer programs will be used to predict how much energy efficient
building design can change the overall power needs of Catalina Island. It will take a retro-
active approach to show what “today’s” power needs would be if the island had been built
with environmentally advanced buildings. It will also give the necessary levels of remodel
needed to reduce energy use. The study will show that building efficiently can completely
change the thesis concept that a CSP plant is more economically efficient than Local PV.

Processing Research Data
This new renewable energy investment option has to take into account four major
factors. First it needs to be accessible to all people, no matter demographic or geographic
constraints. Secondly, they need to be affordable to a wider financial demographic. Thirdly,
it needs to have direct and tangible benefits that anyone can understand. Fourth, any new
option, regardless of how interested the creator may be, needs to be proven as a profitable
investment. The first three issues are easily resolvable, but the fourth is not.
So far this thesis has reviewed, in detail, the history and possible future for
renewable energy. The reason for this investigation was to help validate the idea that
investing in “Being Green” will be profitable. Without the good possibility of return on an
investment, any idea will fail. From the research gathered, there are several reasons to
believe that “Green” is profitable. Starting with the political and legislative end, in chapter 2
we saw that the government has put incredible faith and funding into programs such as
EPACT 2005, ACI & AEI. These programs have the resources to put billions of dollars into
renewable research and projects. Federal and State governments, as well as utility
companies have also implemented rebate programs, tax credits and tariff rates that
132

encourage new forms of power. On the popular end, the idea of “Being Green” has a buzz
about it. It is on the headlines and in the news, and even in Hollywood being green is the
cool thing to do. So, in 2008, there is financial backing, government assistance, and a public
call for renewable energy. Finally, and most importantly to investors, there is precedence
that investing in Solar Power works. Solar Power Plants have proven successful in Nevada,
Spain, Germany, and countless other locations. Not only are they successful, but they are
predictable, reliable and relatively low maintenance. These facilities, after completion
requires little operation and maintenance (O&M). O&M Is so low that the average case
study facility requires only 25-30 employees. This reduces operation costs and maximizes
profit. Also, the alternative energy mutual funds have shown success in the market.
By giving the consumer the option to purchase a Solar Panel at a centralized Solar
Power Plant the average consumer in Los Angeles can more effectively reduce their
electricity bill. A large scale facility, opposed to Local PV, makes a sound investment by
performing at lower costs with a higher payback over longer periods of time. As seen earlier,
by installing a 3,000 kW PV system in Daggett, CA as opposed to Los Angeles there is a
total increased generation of 6.9% (accounting for 10% worst case scenario Transmission
Loss). The research shows that the 10% transmission loss is applied evenly across the
board. Most of Los Angeles’s “Green Power” comes from hydro electric plants in British
Columbia, which is nearly 2,000 miles north. The transmission distance from Daggett is
barely over 100 miles. Daggett is a fraction of the distance and would reduce the total
transmission loss for the grid by supplying a power source to the consumer. Since it is
common practice to send power such long distances, Los Angeles and most of the western
region of United States west coast can use power supplied from Daggett and the
surrounding region. Those areas that are within a few hundred miles might also benefit from
even lower transmission losses.
133

It is proven that in Los Angeles and Southern California, isolated facilities will
produce higher returns than Local PV. How does this affect the demographic that are
interested in green investment? Before answering this question, it is difficult to compare
“apples to apples” when you are comparing different locations. There are certain incentives
available for Local PV installations in Los Angeles through LADWP, which are not available
in Daggett. On top of that, there is no clear funding or incentive system set out by federal,
state or utilities when it comes to large scale facilities owned by private investors. The
current price for installation in LADWP territory is $3.31 per watt, which is lower than any of
the case study projects so far and impossible for large scale plants to beat. According to the
Kyocera data, a 3,000 kW installation in Los Angeles will have a capitol cost of $24,000 (with
no Federal, State or Utility incentives). After Federal, State and Utility incentives, the price in
LADWP territory drops to $9,948. Unlike LADWP’s territory, in Daggett after Federal, State
and Utility incentives, the price only drops to $15,558. Because Daggett is not part of
LADWP, they do not receive the same incentives. So a difference of 100 miles has a price
difference of $5,610. In fact, Santa Monica in not under LADWP’s territory either. So a
neighboring city within the county of LA would pay different rates for PV. These are perfect
examples of why the calculations will be made without incentives added on.
Without assistance the cost of PV installations is $24,000 for 3,000 kW of generation
capacity. This comes out to roughly $8 per watt, which is the target price to beat. At $8 per
watt, a 200 watt panel would cost $1,600 dollars. Based on an average annual usage of 6
mWh per household, that panel would supply approx 5% of the annual electricity needs (200
watts into 6,000,000 watts). To provide a home in Los Angeles with 100% of its electrical
needs, the approx PV Array would be 4,000 watt dc, providing 6.337 mWh annually. At a
cost of $8 per watt, that comes to a total of $32,000 per household to remove a home from
the electrical grid.
134

In order to bring the product to a wider financial demographic, the CSP proposal
needs to be lower than $32,000 per household to supply 100% of the energy needs. The
secondary target will be to beat 200 watts at a total cost of $1,600. If successful, the project
allows arrays to be sold on a smaller, individual basis. This means the overall cost of buying
solar power generation is not limited to an installation size. Unlike Local PV, generation
capacity can be broken into small portions which will allow a broader range of financial
demographic to invest. With PV it does not make financial sense to install 1 panel at a time.
With this system, 1 panel can be bought over and over at the consumer’s request. When
they purchase 1 array, they purchase the ability to generate a specific amount of power.
The consumer can use simple math to calculate their energy needs. It is a simple, straight
forward investment that has clear cut returns. For example, a home uses 6,000 kWh
annually (6 mWh) subtracted by the 2,000 kWh of PV production equals 4,000 kWh
remaining.

135

Chapter 7: Catalina Case Study
Existing Infrastructure & Renewable Proposal

Figure 32: Catalina Island Relief Map (Conservancy, 2008)
Catalina Island is located 32 miles off the coast of Southern California. It is roughly
45 miles South Southwest of Los Angeles, and nearly 32 miles west of El Toro, Ca (which is
in Orange County) at 33°20'38.87"N, 118°19'16.79"W (GoogleEarth, 2008). The Island itself
is 22 miles long and 8 miles wide. The lowest point of the island is sea level and the highest
point is Mt. Orizaba at 648m (2,126 feet). Catalina was incorporated into Los Angeles
County in 1913, but approx 86% (42,139 acres) of the Island falls under the jurisdiction of
the Catalina Island Conservancy (Catalina_Realtors, 2008). The Conservancy is a non-
136

profit organization founded in 1972 for the sole purpose of protecting the island. The
strength of the Conservancy is due mainly to the chewing gum tycoon William Wrigley Jr.
He purchased the island in 1919 and donated all the land he owned to the Conservancy.
Since then they have protected the land, plants and animals that inhabit the island.
Since Catalina Island has been protected by the conservancy, there is limited land
available for any kind of use. Currently the only area on the island that is incorporated as a
city of Los Angeles is Avalon. There are only a few limited ways to get to the island. There
is a small airport located on top of the mountain which services small single and dual-prop
airplanes; it is too small for commercial airlines. There is also the option to sail to the island
from the mainland, either by private boat or the Catalina Express. The Catalina Express
leaves from 3 different ports on the mainland: San Pedro (Southwest Los Angeles), Long
Beach and Dana Point (in Southern Orange County). There is a main harbor at Avalon
where the Catalina Express docks and smaller harbor at Two Harbors where it also takes
passengers. Avalon is located on the South Eastern portion of the island, located on the
northern coastline. The incorporated area is a total of 3.15 square miles (2,016 acres)
including ocean. The total incorporated land in Avalon is 2.81 square miles (1,798 acres).
Even though the available land is limited the population growth has not been minimal, 8%
annual average since 1970. In 1970 the census reported 1,500 residents. In 1980 the
census reported 2,200 residents. And the most recent census in 2000 lists 3,696 residents
on Catalina Island (US_Census, 2000). There are 1281 households on Catalina; the
average consumption of electricity per household is 6.9 mWh annually. Since there are
roughly 3,696 residents living in 1281 households, the average household size is 2.88
persons. Los Angeles holds 2.8 persons per household. The current population density of
Avalon is 1,315 people per mile. Recently new housing has been built on the island to fill the
needs of the growing population.
137

“Hamilton Cove, an exclusive condominium project located on the waterfront north of
Avalon Bay. This project includes some 330 units having security gate entry,
swimming pool, beach club, clubhouse tennis courts, croquet courts, weight/
exercise room, volleyball court, pitch and put golf and 27 moorings. Units range in
size from 810 to 2,531 square feet and are located on land leased by the Santa
Catalina Island Company.” (Catalina_Realtors, 2008)

Table 31: Heating Fuel Usage (City-data.com, 2008)

In Los Angeles, the average population for the year 2000 was 2,345 people per
square mile (LA_Almanac, 2008). The average electricity use per household is 6.0 mWh,
which is 0.9 mWh lower than the average Catalina household. This can be attributed to the
high amount of electricity used for heating during the winter. On Catalina electricity is used
for 43% of heating, compared to Los Angeles using only 20% electricity for heating (City-
data.com, 2008). In 1960, Los Angeles had a population density of 1,488 which is close to
Catalina’s current status (LA_Almanac, 2008). That figure points to the slowed growth of the
island compared to the mainland. This is mainly due to the efforts of the Islands residents
and Conservancy making a strong push to keep the island from becoming developed.
Another factor is the limited amount of potable water. Catalina Island experiences a strong
tourist trade and heavy tourist season from June to October. Each year, the island hosts in
excess of 800,000 visitors. That number, like the local population, has been steadily
138

increasing per year. “The average annual growth since 1980 is 2.4% per year. The increase
between 1988 and 1989 was 3.15%” (Catalina_Realtors, 2008).
The utility infrastructure of Avalon consists of the Pebbly Beach Generation Station
(PBGS), which is run by So Cal Edison. Fresh Water comes partially from the reservoir and
partially from the So Cal Edison run desalinization plant located on the PBGS site. So Cal
Edison also is in charge of gas supply for the island. Telephone is serviced by Pacific Bell
and transmitted through both a marine cable and a microwave transmitter
(Catalina_Realtors, 2008), which is a remnant of the Cold War communication grid. The
microwave transmitter was built to withstand a nuclear attack on the mainland, and act as a
node in the national microwave transmitter grid. Finally in the same area as the PBGS site
is the landfill and waste treatment plant.
Two Harbors is on the upper region of the island where it pinches together forming a
harbor on the northeast and southwest sides. Two Harbors mainly has two functions,
camping and research. The only established buildings on this area of the island are direct
functions of these two user programs. The USC Wrigley Institute is located in Two Harbors.
It is a 30,000 sq. ft. facility that houses 24 researchers and up to 60 students. The facility
focuses on the marine life, the ocean cycles and other marine events. The facility has diving
facilities and there is a hyperbaric chamber. The hyperbaric chamber assists divers who
suffer from decompression accidents, known commonly as “the bends” (USC_Wrigley,
2008). The crucial, instant demand for this item requires a 24 hour available power source.
Items such as this have a demand that forces the island to have a diesel generator for
emergencies, even if the island is retrofitted with new renewable power sources. Outside of
the institute, Two Harbors offers a few buildings and a pier in the terms of “development”.
There are older buildings such as the Banning House (now the B&B Inn), the old Saloon and
the old Civil War barracks. There are also newer buildings that service the local area, such
139

as the Yacht Club, local market and liquor store. The main infrastructure items are the
docks that supply gas, docking for the Catalina Express, as well as a bus that runs back and
forth from Avalon. The camping facilities provide minimal services and have minimal impact
on the environment. This portion of the Island requires little energy and services. There are
public facilities available such as the pay showers, toilets, clothing washer/dryer, ATM,
telephones, repair shops and first aid station. There is a local landfill, local waste treatment
and a fresh water supply. There is no documented information, but the author assumes that
all natural gas for heating and other uses is shipped in from Avalon by container, and there
is no pipeline. Two Harbors is connected to Avalon by high voltage transmission lines that
run from the Pebbly Beach Power Station. To give an idea of the current level of
“development”, the yacht club is hoping they bring at least one of the following items to Two
Harbors in the next 5 years (#5 is the author’s favorite):
“1. Ice maker and refrigerator
2. Propane and/or microwave oven
3. Several Yosemite type tent cabins
4. Beach lockers
5. Flush toilets
6. Permanent pier and dinghy dock
7. Sports equipment for members use at the Cove” (KHYC, 2008)

140

Weather and Climate

Figure 33: Catalina Island Map with Solar Path Diagram Overlaid (Conservancy, 2008)
(SquareOne, 2008) (EnergyPlus, 2007)
Catalina Island is located close enough to the California Coastline to share the
weather conditions, but it is far enough away to have its own microclimate. This
microclimate is what makes the Catalina Island Conservancy so important. The weather and
island conditions are unique and hold plant life and animal life that are unique to the area.
“There's a reason Catalina Island has been said to have "the perfect climate."
Catalina boasts a year-round Mediterranean climate, with warm, sunny days and
cool evening breezes. In the summer, the average temperature is 75 degrees, while
the mild winter average temperature is 65 degrees. The sun shines an average of
267 days a year, and the average rainfall is 14 inches per year.” (Catalina, 2006)
141

Table 32: Catalina Island Average High and Low Temp. (Catalina, 2008)

Table 33: Catalina Weather Data from 30 years of collection (eCatalina, 2008)

Over the last 30 years, the average annual high has been 69° and average annual
low has been 56° (eCatalina, 2008). That is an overall annual average of 62.5 °F. The
annual solar radiation is a difficult matter to resolve. Different sources are providing different
information that lead to different results. The average temperatures are approx 1° higher
than the mainland city of El Toro, CA (EnergyPlus, 2007) (Catalina, 2008) (WRCC, 2008).
The overall annual average temperature of El Toro, CA has been 61.5 °F (EnergyPlus,
2007). According to the National Solar Radiation Database, El Toro received about 65% to
70% the Solar Radiation of Catalina (NSRD, 2005). But according to the average rainfall
data, Catalina should be receiving less solar radiation. Middle Ranch, Catalina receives
14.4” of rainfall per year (KHYC, 2008). The average rainfall at El Toro MCAS is 12.4”
142

(EnergyPlus, 2007). If Catalina receives 116% of the annual rainfall, then that brings up the
assumption that there is more cloud cover and therefore less sunlight.

Figure 34: Wind Rose for Catalina Island, 2000-07 @ elev. of 1600’ (Conservancy, 2008)
These Wind Rose graphs are taken from the weather station located at the airport, around
the middle of the island. The wind mainly comes from the west southwest.
143

Pebbly Beach Generation Station (PBGS)

Figure 35: Avalon & Pebbly Beach Generation Station (GoogleEarth, 2008)
Since there is a relatively low power demand and the island is physically separated
from the mainland by a large stretch of ocean, it was decided that the most economically
viable solution, at the time, was to install diesel generators for power. The island has been
running off diesel power since 1919, beginning with a single-cylinder diesel, leather belt
driven, generator set. It has periodically been upgraded ever since to meet the growing
needs of the island. Currently as it stands today, the Pebbly Beach Generation Station
(PBGS) is run by So Cal Edison and has a 6 diesel engine plant. PBGS is located on
Pebbly Beach road, just about 1 mile southeast of Avalon Harbor.
144

Figure 36: Pebbly Beach Generation Station Plot Plan (SCAQMD, 2003)
145

The site is roughly 2.5 acres and holds the island’s 6 diesel generators, two storage
tanks for fuel oil, a liquid petroleum gas (LPG) tank farm, the water desalinization plant,
warehouse, shops and an office building. The Diesel Generators are EMD diesel fueled
engines. The 6 units have a full operational capacity of 9.3 mW. The Base Load of the plant
is approx 5 mW, and the typical “high” load for the plant is 6 mW (SCAQMD, 2003) (Hedrick,
2007). They are engines which were manufactured for locomotives. It is not sure if these
engines were reclaimed from old locomotive engines, or installed brand new from the
factory. There are two “root blown” engines, model number 16-645 operating at 900 rpm.
There are four turbocharged engines, model numbers 16-567, 12-645, 16-645 and 16-710
which are all operating at 720 rpm. The first two digits of the model number represent the
number of valves, typically in a “V” configuration. No two engines in this configuration were
the same since each engine was added as needed over time (Hedrick, 2007). In November
of 2004 an inspection of the system was made and found that every engine needed exhaust
after-treatment. Five of the engines required 70% NOx reductions (from 1000ppm to
300ppm), and one required 90% NOx reductions (from 650 ppm to 51 ppm). The engines
use CARB Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (ULSDF). This costs an extra 10% premium charge
for the fuel, and when stored it was found the sulfur level was not consistent. This was
thought to be due to transportation contamination (Hedrick, 2007).
Currently diesel engines are being engineered to produce drastically lower
emissions. But even with biodiesel mixtures, there are no clear “solutions” to the problem.
In a 2004 test an EMD 16-645 Engine was tested for emissions while running on different
types of fuel. In this test it was found that when biodiesel was mixed into the diesel, the CO
output would be reduced but the NOx would be increased proportionally. So the solution of
the diesel engines on Catalina does not lie in alternative fuel sources. But investigations into
new engines that produce lower emissions could help the island. New engine standards for
146

locomotives are looking for 5.5 g/hp-hr of NOx and .2 h/hp-hr of PM (Kopinski, 2004). This is
a reduction of over half the NOx and PM in the 2004 test engines emissions. Considering
the age of the current Catalina Engines, it is safe to say they run at standards less than or
equal to the test engine.
Table 34: Results of Emissions testing on EMD 16-645 Engines (Fritz, 2004)

Figure 37: One of the Six Diesel Engines Manufacturer’s Sticker (Hedrick, 2007)
147

Figure 38: Diesel Generator Exhaust System (Hedrick, 2007)
Catalina Island uses 33.3 million kWh annually to power the entire island. Of which,
88% to 90% is consumed by Avalon (see usage charts on following pages). 33.3 million
kWh is equivalent to 33,300 mWh, based on that data the diesel generators running at 5 mW
would average 18.2 hours of operation a day. At 6 mW would average 15.2 hours of
operation a day. These are averages, and do not account for lower nighttime generation
and high peak daytime generation. With the existing engines the amount of pollution is well
beyond acceptable rates.

148

Table 35: Monthly Electricity Consumption for Catalina Island (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

Avalon consume 10.4% to 11.8% of the islands total electricity usage (SCE, 2007)
4,328,196
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
January March May July September November
KWH
KWH Usage for 2005
Commercial
Residential
2005 has Unusual
peak in Dec
Total 2005:
33,379,352 kWh
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
January March May July September November
KWH
KWH Usage for 2006
Commercial
Residental
Total 2006:
31,657,149 kWh
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
January March May July
KWH
KWH Usage for 2007
Commercial
Residential
Data only gathered
up to Aug 2007
Total 2007 (w/ 2006 data):
estimated 31,564,634 kWh
149

Table 36: Monthly Electricity Consumption, outside Avalon (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

Avalon consume 10.4% to 11.8% of the islands total electricity usage (SCE, 2007)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
January February March April May June July August September October November December
KWH
2005 KWH Usage Outside of A valon
Commercial 2005
Residential 2005
Total 2005:
3,484,616 kWh
Total C: 2,845,153 kWh - 82%
Total R: 639,463 kWh - 18%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
January February March April May June July August September October November December
KWH
2006 KWH Usage Outside of A valon
Commercial 2006
Residential 2006
Total 2006:
3,751,666 kWh
Total C: 3,112,473 kWh - 83%
Total R: 639,193 kWh - 17%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
January February March April May June July AugustSeptember
KWH
2007 KWH Usage Outside of A valon
Commercial
Residential
Total to Sep 2006:
2,921,765 kWh
Total C: 2,440,856 kWh - 83%
Total R: 480,909 kWh - 17%
Data only gathe re d
up to Sep 2007
150

Table 37: Catalina Island Total Elec. Annual Usage for 2005 (Swanson, 2008)

Table 38: Catalina Island Residential & Commercial Elec. Usage, 2005 (Swanson, 2008)

All data obtained directly from So Cal Edison in 2007 (SCE, 2007)

151

Table 39: Catalina Island Total Elec. Annual Usage for 2006 (Swanson, 2008)

Table 40: Catalina Island Residential & Commercial Elec. Usage, 2006 (Swanson, 2008)

All data obtained directly from So Cal Edison in 2007 (SCE, 2007)
152

Table 41: Catalina Island Total Elec. Annual Usage, Projected for 2007 (Swanson, 2008)

Table 42: Catalina Island Res. & Com. Elec. Usage, Projected for 2007 (Swanson, 2008)

All data obtained directly from So Cal Edison in 2007 (SCE, 2007)
153

Water Supply
The Catalina Island Reservoir and Pebbly Beach Desalinization plant also play an
important role in maintaining the human population of the island. As of 1993, the annual
rainfall provides enough water to supply Catalina with 70% of its potable water, but an
additional 30% is harvested through the salt water desalinization plant (CCC, 1993). The
plant operated at a cost of $2,000 per acre foot, or $6 per 1,000 gallons (CCC, 1993). In
1993 the annual cost of running the plant would be $296,000. As of 2004, the plant annually
produces 148 acre feet, which is approx 48,226,011 gallons (CCC, 2004). According to data
from So Cal Edison, currently Catalina Island consumes 69,072,600 gallons per year, or 211
acre feet. This is an increase from 30% of the water supply in 1993 to 43% of the total water
supply for the island in 2007. The price for operating the plant in 2007, after inflation is
applied would be roughly $2,921 per acre foot. This brings the annual production cost to
roughly $616,311. Additionally, the plant has a rating of 27% Product Water Recovery,
which means for every 100 gallons of salt water captured 27 gallons of fresh water is
produced. As of 1993, the average recovery rates were 15% to 50% (CCC, 1993).
Currently facilities appear to receive similar ratings. As a note, in the research process
permit numbers were found as well as locations of where permit applications were supposed
to be filed. When the government website databases were searched, no permits could be
found. It is assumed that since the plant was built in 1989, its permit records have not made
it to internet databases.
A more crucial figure is the amount of electricity needed to produce clean water.
“Theoretically, about 0.86 kWh of energy is needed to desalinate 1 m
3
of salt water
(34,500 ppm)” (DESWARE, 2008). 1 cubic meter is equal to 263 gallons, making it .86 kWh
per 263 gallons. Based on that figure, the 69 million gallons per year would use 225,627
154

kWh of electricity per year. Considering Catalina has such a small population, and their
residential power consumption is 879,111 kWh, reducing desalination energy would make a
large impact. Currently the energy needed to produce 43% of the population’s water is
equivalent to providing energy for 25% of the residences. That is nearly a 1 to 1.5 ratio,
which means lowering the energy consumption of the water reclamation process 1% is like
removing 1.5 homes from the island. More efficient measures of harvesting water need to
be investigated. This is a perfect example of where efficiency upgrades are more effective
than any source of renewable power. Upgrade measures such as Energy Recovery devices
can be installed onto the existing system. These devices use waste energy, such as heat
and pressure, to pre-pressurize intake water and reduce the energy demand. Since one of
the highest energy demands comes from the pressurization of source water, this is the most
effective place to start. Additionally, any measures that will increase the performance ratio
will allow more water to be produced at less cost, financially and energy cost. Future
investigation on new forms of desalination can also be investigated. Today there are
methods that require substantially less power and supply higher efficiency rates. The
conservation techniques used currently are not known, but there could be a renewed effort
to save water through adjustments to daily life.
Table 43: Water Usage Statistics (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

155

Table 44: Catalina Island Total Saltwater Annual Usage (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

Table 45: Catalina Island Total Saltwater Monthly Usage (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)
23,082,600
12,264,000
33,726,000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
Resident Commercial Resident Commercial Visitor
gallons/year
Usage Demographic
Annual Saltwater Usage
(no date given, assume 2006)
Total: 69,072,600 g/y
1,923,550
1,022,000
2,810,500
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Resident Commercial Resident Commercial Visitor
gallons/month
Usage Demographic
Monthly Saltwater Usage
(no date given, assume 2006)
156

Table 46: Catalina Island Potable Water Annual Usage (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

Table 47: Catalina Island Potable Peak & Avg. Usage (SCE, 2007) (Swanson, 2008)

72,699,484
22,699,933
62,424,817
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
Resident Commercial Resident Commercial Visitor
gallons/year
Usage Demographic
Annual Potable Water Usage
(no date given, assume 2006)
Total: 157,824,234 g/y
6,058,290
1,891,661
5,202,068
8,583,510
3,409,296
9,375,564
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
Resident Commercial Resident Commercial Visitor
gallons/month
Usage Demographic
Comparison of Peak & Avg. Monthly
Potable Water Usage
(no date given, assume 2006)
Average Monthly Usage
Peak Monthly Usage
157

Chapter 8: Catalina Case Study Analysis
Energy Review & Cost to the Consumer
The research shows that Catalina Island, as a whole, uses 31.5 million kWh per year
of electricity. The yearly electricity consumption data also shows that even with population
growth, the annual electricity use has stayed at the same level. But for the purpose of this
study, we will assume a 35 million kWh annual use to cover the scenario of a possible
increase in energy due to new population growth and new construction since the 2000
census. The Catalina Realtors describe new apartments being built in recent years and they
estimate the island population to be around 4,000 people (Catalina_Realtors, 2008). For the
following study it will be assumed the population has grown to 4,000 people. Based on
resident growth rate, it can be calculated that there are now 1386 households on Catalina.
To follow the Kyoto Protocol’s timeline requires countries to reduce their emissions 5.2%
below their 1990 baseline over the 2008 to 2012 period. Based on growth rates, Catalina
had approx 3,000 residents in 1990, which is 75% of the current 4,000 residents. So in 1990
it can be estimated that 75% of the power was used, bringing the total to 26 million kWh. To
meet the Kyoto Protocol standards, Catalina will need to reduce its diesel generation by 10.3
million kWh annually. That would bring Catalina in line with the current California Energy
Action Plan. This study looks to completely eliminate all diesel power use, outside of
emergency backup power and power during periods when the solar radiation is not
available.
According to the So Cal Edison data, of the total energy usage, about 27% goes to
residential use. Using the current annual data, residential uses 8.5 million kWh annually and
commercial uses 22.9 million kWh annually. If the estimated 35 million kWh figure is used,
then residential consumes 9.5 million kWh. To double check this estimation, the total
158

residential energy use will be calculated in reverse. There are 1386 households on Catalina
that consume energy at an annual rate of 6.9 mWh. That is a total annual use of 9.5 Million
kWh for residential. Now that the 35 million kWh annual usages is verified, the next phase in
this study will be to generate costs for Local PV installations. Using the residential to
commercial ratios of 27% to 73% annual consumptions can be estimated. Once determined,
the Kyocera PV Calculator will provide costs for the necessary PV installations. Additionally,
these simulations will have battery backup costs included into the final figures. The reason
for adding battery backup is because later in the study, these will be compared to CSP
systems that have thermal storage. The thermal storage is roughly equivalent to a one day
storage battery. Also, PV installations without battery backup will not provide any nighttime
electricity.

PV Installation Analysis
When constructing a new building, there are infrastructure costs involved. If the
household is going to be attached to the grid, then there would be a cost to physically
connect the building to the power supply. This can be a very expensive proposition, based
on the building site’s proximity to the closest available power line. In an urban area such as
Los Angeles, the cost can be assumed the average cost of connection is relatively low
(depending on situation). That is because almost all of the urban area has an electricity
connection within yards of any building site. Unfortunately, the costs cannot be determined
in this analysis because no documentation could be found to estimate this price. An
alternative to grid connection is a battery storage system. This would eliminate the cost of
connection to the grid, but would add the cost of a battery, maintenance and the short
lifespan costs. Depending on situation, this may or may not be a cheaper solution.
159

“Most off grid solar electrical systems utilize the larger Xantrex or Outback inverters,
costing approximately $2500. They are highly reliable and approximately 90%
efficient…Over half of all battery-based solar electoral systems are utilizing Trojan T
105 or Trojan L 16 batteries… For the average house we normally see 24 Trojan T
105 batteries being utilized. This would give the homeowner approximately 24 K. W.
worth of electrical storage. The downside is that these batteries need to be
maintained and will last only 7 years…. A typical bank of 24 Trojan T 105 batteries
will cost approximately $2500. This will typically allow the homeowner enough
storage to cover an occasional cloudy day or two and overnight usage.” (Carlson,
2008)

Based on 6.9 mWh annual residential usages, 1 day of power to a home on Catalina
would consume 19 kWh of electricity. A battery pack system supplies 24 kWh of storage
capacity, which would provide over 1 days worth of power. In order to have nearly two days
worth of storage (38 kWh) the battery pack would need to be sized to 36 kWh of storage.
The reason for sizing to 36 kWh instead of 38 kWh is because the battery system is sized on
factors of 4. The battery tied inverter cost is relatively similar to grid tied, so it will not be
calculated as extra. So the basic cost of installing a 2 day backup battery for the solar array
is a minimum $3,750. That does not reflect the energy put into maintenance and replacing
the system over time. These costs would not affect existing buildings with existing grid
connections. Also, based on the small area of developable land available in Avalon, there is
a good chance a grid connection will be within reasonable proximity. Outside of Avalon
though, the decision to run on batteries or grid connection would be on a case by case basis.
160

Figure 39: Kyocera PV Calculator - Residential 100% Solar Power (KyoceraSolar, 2007)
To run an initial simulation, the Kyocera PV Calculator will be used to estimate the
total number of solar panels and total cost to consumer to supply Local PV power based on
6.9 mWh per household. To power the unit, a 4,500 watt dc PV system is required to output
7,080 ac kWh (7.0 ac mWh) annually. This system will provide and annual supply just above
specification. The generation of this unit is calculated based on Avalon weather data. It also
calculates based on a best case scenario for the installation. It assumes the PV unit is
facing south and is at an optimal tilt of 30° to obtain maximum solar gains. The system cost,
without incentives, is $36,000. After 2008 incentives for Avalon under So Cal Edison, the
cost is $24,381. As a note, the same exact system in Los Angeles, under LADWP, after
incentives costs $15,922. This is nearly a $10,000 difference. Based on the capitol cost of
$36,000, to power the entire island’s 1,386 residences it would cost $49.9 million. If all
161

residences were to add battery backups, at a cost of $2,500 for 1 day backup per residence,
the additional cost would be $3.5 million. To have full Local PV power for all Catalina
residences with 1 day battery backup it would cost $53.4 million. That is a final cost of
$38,500 per household. Again, this is only for 27% of the island’s total power use. Even if
incentives were calculated in, the total cost with battery backup comes to $40.6 million.

Figure 40: Kyocera PV Calculator - Residential 100% Solar Power (KyoceraSolar, 2007)
Commercial power uses 22.5 million kWh annually. Commercial power adds a
drastically high additional cost. The next calculation will assume a series of 1 mW dc
facilities will be installed across the island. The 1 mW facilities could be installed on
162

rooftops, over parking lots, or on undeveloped land. It would also be possible to group 1
mW facilities into a series of medium size installations can be installed throughout Avalon.
The PV Calculator estimates that in this location a 1 mW dc facility will produce 1,494,735 ac
kWh per year (1.5 million kWh/year). To supply the island with the commercial electricity
load, 15 facilities will have to be installed. At a capital cost of $8,000,000 per facility, a
commercial PV installation will cost a total of $120,000,000. This does not include battery
backup systems, which would add a large additional cost. If residential systems cost an
average of $2,500 for a 1 day backup, then there would be an additional $7.8 million to
backup the commercial system for 1 day. The total for cost for a commercial system with 1
day battery backup comes to $127,800,000. Combined, to install the annual 35 million kWh
worth of Local PV generation capacity, the cost to the island would be $181,200,000. If an
all commercial sized facility was installed, at 1 mW dc each, there would be 23.5 facilities
around Avalon. At a cost of $8,000,000 per facility, to produce 35 million kWh annually
would cost $188,000,000. That does not include battery backup, which appears to be an
additional 6.5% per day, bringing the total to $200,000,000.
Nellis AFB’s Solar Array generates approx 25.5 million kWh annually. That facility
has 72,416 “200 watt” PV panels mounted on a tracking system creating 969,516 sq ft of PV
Cells. To create 35 million kWh, the facility would need to increase by 37%, bringing it to a
total of 99,350 “200 watt” PV panels creating 1.3 million sq ft, or 30 acres. The price would
also increase from $100,000,000 to $137,000,000. Without re-calculating for lower solar
radiation in Catalina or adding costs for battery backup, that puts the cost of this entire
system $49.9 million lower than the Kyocera estimate for residential and commercial
facilities. The first step in adjusting for Catalina’s weather climate would be toad solar
radiation reductions to the facilities output generation. Due to an error in the PV Calculator
programming, accurate data for Nellis could not be found. But the calculator ran properly for
163

the Daggett, CA location. Since Daggett receives lower annual solar radiation than Nellis,
this can be substituted without issues of over-compensation. In the Daggett location, a 1
mW dc facility would generate 1,770,392 kWh annually. In Avalon, the estimated output was
1,494,735 kWh. This means a theoretical 35 million kWh Nellis system will need to be
upgraded by 18% to achieve a 35 million kWh output in Catalina. That brings the total cost
to $161,600,000 for the PV Solar Array. With the 6.5% additional cost for batteries, the price
comes to $172,000,000. That total is $28 million less than the all commercial PV system
and $9 million less than the local PV residential and commercial combined cost.
Three different scenarios combined with a Case Study double check have confirmed
that any type of PV Solar Installation would cost, at minimum of nearly $180 million. With
1,386 residences, this comes out to a “per household” cost of almost $130,000. Another
factor not investigated yet is the square footage required. The incorporated area of Avalon
is 2,016 acres total. Kyocera’s KD210GX-LP PV panel, 210 watt dc capacity, is roughly 3.5’
by 5.0’ which equals 17.5 square feet (sq ft) (Kyocera, 2008). For a 1 mW, or 1,000 kW
facility there would be 4,761 panels equaling 83,317 sq ft total. If 23.5 One mW facilities
were installed, the entire island would require nearly 2 million sq ft of solar panels, or 46
acres. The facility at Nellis is 969,516 sq ft. To power Catalina, the system size had to be
upgraded by roughly 61%. This would equal 1,560,920 sq ft, or 36 acres.

CSP Installation Analysis
To estimate the effects of a CSP Facility, the solar radiation reduction percentage for
Catalina needs to be determined. This means that if a facility, such as PS10, was to be
theoretically placed on Catalina then the ratio of Spain’s solar radiation to Catalina’s solar
radiation needs to be used to calculate the generation losses. Square One’s “Weather Tool”
164

is an excellent program for investigating climate data of specific areas (SquareOne, 2008).
The weather data used in Weather Tool comes from the Energy Plus website (EnergyPlus,
2007). The closest weather data location to Catalina is El Toro, CA. As mentioned before,
El Toro is located on the mainland almost due east of Catalina. The author grew up in El
Toro, and often visited Catalina Island during his childhood. He would Travel to the island
either on the Catalina Express or by flying in his father’s Single Engine Piper Cherokee to
“Top of the World” airport. The weather conditions in the two locations are very similar.
Based on weather data from the past 30 years, the average annual temperature of Catalina
is approx 1° higher than the mainland city of El Toro, CA (EnergyPlus, 2007) (Catalina,
2008) (WRCC, 2008). The annual average of Catalina is 62.5 °F (eCatalina, 2008). The
annual average temperature of El Toro, CA has been 61.5 °F (EnergyPlus, 2007).
The annual solar radiation is a difficult matter to resolve. Different sources are
providing different information that lead to different results. According to the National Solar
Radiation Database, El Toro received about 25% to 30% less solar radiation than Catalina
(NSRD, 2005). But according to the average rainfall data, this seems incorrect. Middle
Ranch, Catalina receives 14.4” of rainfall per year (KHYC, 2008). The average rainfall at El
Toro MCAS is 12.4” (NOAA, 200). If Catalina receives 116% of the annual rainfall, then that
brings up the assumption that there is more cloud cover and therefore less sunlight. The
final review used the Kyocera PV Calculator. When simulations of Catalina and El Toro
were run, the calculator used the same Solar Radiation for both locations, which means they
must be relatively close (KyoceraSolar, 2007). The conclusion is that the two locations are
similar enough and have interchangeable climates. El Toro data will be used for the
Catalina analysis, but to add a degree of “fail-safe”, an assumed 5% to 10% reduction in
solar radiation will be applied. El Toro, Ca has an annual solar radiation of 1,085 kWh/m
2
.
Using an 8% reduction, the estimated solar radiation for Catalina is 1,000 kWh/m
2
.
165

Both Solar Tres and PS10 are located less than 60 miles from each other. Solar
Tres is in a small city called Écija, which is in the Seville Province. PS10 is located in the
city of Seville itself. From the weather data file, the annual solar radiation is 1,126 kWh/m
2

(EnergyPlus, 2007). That means that the same exact facility, built on Catalina Island would
operate at 89% capacity. PS10 has been rated at 11 mW, which means it would rate at 9.76
mW on Catalina Island. Currently, the maximum peak load the diesel generators are able to
handle is 9.3 mW. So the peak load demand will be met without any increase to the size of
the plant. Currently, PS10 is able to “Achieve an annual electricity production about 20 to
25GWh” (EC5th, 2006). 25 gWh is equal to 25 million kWh. After the reduction for solar
radiation, on Catalina PS10 would produce 22.5 million kWh. The plant would need an
increase of 55% to supply adequate power for the Island. Solar Tres is to be rated at 17 mW
when completed. It is predicted to supply a minimum of 96.4 gWh annually, which is equal
to 96.4 million kWh (Ortega, 2007?). That is almost triple the needs of Catalina. When the
solar radiation reduction is applied, Solar Tres would produce 85.7 million kWh annually. To
achieve levels necessary for Catalina Island, Solar Tres would have to be reduced by 63%
to nearly 1/3 of its current capacity.
Even though these figures are either short or long of the target goal of 35 million
kWh, they start to give a platform in which to make estimates from. First off both projects
have a built in “battery” system in the form of nighttime thermal storage. Secondly, we have
PS10, which was built at a cost of $41 million USD. Solar Tres though does not have a clear
construction cost. There are estimations from 2003 that place the facilities cost around $100
million USD. Due to Solar Tres having insufficient financial data and a generation capacity
triple the islands needs, it will not be used for the study. As a starting point, if it is assumed
PS10 was installed onto Catalina Island, it would produce 22.5 mWh annually. The overall
cost would be $41 million USD. To power for 64% of the island would cost roughly $29,600
166

per household. That is nearly enough electricity power the annual commercial load, which is
72% of the islands consumption. If a second PS10 was built on the island, it would cost an
additional $41 million USD and bring the total generation to 128% of the islands projected
needs. The entire facility cost comes to a total of $82 million, which would be a cost of
nearly $60,000 per household. Without applying any size adjustments, the $82 million
facility that will provide 128% of the power needs is over $100 million cheaper than PV. The
cost of installing Local PV or commercial PV systems that supply 100% of the islands power,
with battery backup are over double the cost of two PS10 facilities.
This estimate shows how PV facilities on Catalina Island are not successful
compared to alternative forms of solar energy. On Catalina, the fear of a CSP plant would
be the intense heat on an island that is prone to wildfire. In May of 2007 Catalina suffered a
wildfire northwest of Avalon that burnt over 4,000 undeveloped acres. This issue raises the
question of how big will the facility be and can it be installed in a safe location? The total
square footage of receiver surface for two PS10 facilities would be 1,612,000 sq ft (74,880
m
2
x 2 = 149,760 m2 = 1,612,000 sq ft) which is equal to 37 acres. The calculated receiver
area for enough PV installations to supply 100% power was between 36 acres for an
upgrade Nellis Facility and 46 acres based on Kyocera’s calculation. As a note these are
receiver square footages, not site square footage. The site square footage for a CSP facility
on heliostats or a PV facility on heliostats should be relatively the same. Both scenarios
involve a heliostat layout design that would space the PV panels so that they do not self
shade each other. According to Nellis AFB, the “Project surface area: 140 acres” (Nellis
AFB, 2008). So for approx. 70,000 panels it consumes 140 acres. If the numbers of panels
are increased by 61% then the total project surface area on Catalina would be 225.5 acres.
The PS10 field consumes more than 37 acres of receiver surface, due to field layout
patterns to reduce self-shading and receive optimal gain. PS10 uses 55 hectares, which is
167

136 acres. Two PS10 plants would consume 272 acres total, which is 21% larger than the
Nellis PV comparison. It would be difficult to find a 136 acre site on Catalina that is
undeveloped and not a risk of wildfire. The question comes down to which is the lesser evil,
using undeveloped land for a “clean” power plant, or running diesel engines? If both evils
are too great, than PV would be the most logical of the proposed solutions.
Since the PS10 facilities are producing an extra 28% of the islands power needs, it
an easily be assumed the field sizes could be reduced to an equal acreage and still supply
the necessary power needs. And since the CSP fields are documented to cost roughly 42%
of the entire project cost, reducing their size will have a major impact on the cost reduction of
the project. But, unlike PV installations, CSP fields need to take up undeveloped land to
have a proper layout with minimal self-shading. PV installations, even at commercial size,
can be dispersed among the existing developed community on rooftops. There might be
generation losses due to less than optimum orientation, tilt and shading from neighboring
buildings, but there is low environmental impact.
If the PS10 facility was to be adjusted by scale to meet Catalina’s power needs, it
would grow from 9.76 mW capacity at an annual generation of 22.5 million kWh by 55%.
That would create a 15.2 mW capacity at an annual generation of 35 million kWh. The
estimated price inflation would grow from $41 million USD to $63.7 million. The end result
comes to a cost of $46,000 per household for Catalina. The total size of the installation
would grow from 74,880 m2 of receiver to 116,500 m2. The total field area would increase
from 136 acres to 212 acres. The overall initial cost savings for a CSP facility is staggering
compared to any kind of PV installation. The risk comes into lifespan, maintenance and
having 100% generation in one facility.

168

Recycling Solar Two
Solar Two was rated at a capacity of 11.3 megawatts, but never operated long
enough to give documented data. The facility used 82,774 m
2
of mirrors, which is slightly
larger than PS10 which we do have data for. PS10 uses 74,880 m2 of mirror, giving Solar
Two 10.5% larger heliostat array. If it were assumed that Solar Two was operating on
PS10’s tower and engineering, than it could be assumed that the facility would be producing
11 mW plus 10.5%, making it a 12.1 mW facility. It would annually produce 25 million kWh
plus 10.5%, equaling 27.6 million kWh. If it were assumed this facility was placed on
Catalina Island, with the solar radiation reduction of 89% applied, the plant operates at 10.7
mW capacity producing 24.5 million kWh annually.
Solar Two uses 28% the total area of mirrors used in Solar Tres, which uses
298,000 m2 of mirrors. If it were assumed that Solar Two was operating on Solar Tres’s
tower and engineering, than it could be assumed that the facility would be producing 96.4
million kWh minus 72%, estimating a production of 27 million kWh annually. That is
assuming it would generate enough heat and not “freeze” the molten salt system. If it were
assumed this facility was placed on Catalina Island, with the solar radiation reduction of 89%
applied, the plant would produce 24 million kWh annually. Interestingly enough the Mirrors
from Solar Two used on either facilities technology would produce roughly 24 to 27.6 million
kWh annually. The reasons for why the two technologies nearly match when scaled to the
heliostat size are not obvious. But the findings do reinforces the documented data stating
that molten salt HTF produces more efficient results than saturated steam.
There is documentation in both Solar Tres and PS10 that the Heliostat array costs
roughly 42% the total cost for the entire project. This is where the greatest benefits of
recycling Solar Two come into play. If PS10 was installed, using recycled heliostats from
169

Solar Two, the savings would be 42% of the project cost, which equals a savings of $14.2
million. Based on the earlier calculation, if PS10 was enlarged to fulfill Catalina’s power
needs it would require a solar receiver area of 116,500 m2at a final price of $63.7 million.
By recycling Solar Two’s heliostats, the final price would be reduced to $49.5 million (plus
the cost of recycling Solar Two).

Efficiency of Recycling Solar Two
Table 48: Field to Tower Efficiency: Empirical Data & Estimations (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

170

Table 49: Solar Two and Solar Tres Field Summary (Sargent & Lundy, 2003)

Before calculating the difficulty of recycling Solar Two, an initial question to this plan
would be about the integrity of the Solar Two field? Will its efficiency be equal to current
standards? Since the technology medium used are mirrors, there is little room for
improvement for overall efficiency. The Solar Two receiver has a “reflectivity” of 90.7%, with
a “mirror cleanliness” of 95%. Solar Tres is estimated to have a reflectivity of 93.5%, with a
mirror cleanliness of 95% as well. This shows that technology improvements of mirrors will
not have significant increases in their reflection. The technological upgrades on mirrors will
have more effect on materials used, price, weight, durability, etc. The actual field efficiency
of Solar Two was 62%, while Solar Tres is estimated to obtain 64.6%. The Solar One “field
to receiver” efficiency rating was 58%, Solar Two was 50.3%, and Solar Tres is estimated to
achieve 56%. This is due mainly to field layout design and distances from the receiver. The
difference between mirrors is an overall upgrade of roughly 2.6%, and the field design from
Solar One is superior to Solar Tres (due to closer proximity to tower) while Solar Two lost
171

efficiency due to poor layout design of new mirror installations. The final conclusion on the
heliostat array for Solar Two is that it can achieve equal efficiencies as Solar Tres or PS10.

Figure 41: Solar One Heliostat Design (Stine, 2004)
The major considerations in recycling of the heliostats will be the current status of
the motors and mechanisms themselves. It will be possible to salvage the mirrors and mirror
structures without a doubt. Based on the above figure, from the mirror to rack assembly can
172

be salvaged without question. But the current status of the Azimuth and Elevation drive
mechanism may be questionable. But, the rest of the heliostat, from the support pedestal to
the footing, could probably be recycled as well. Since these are all static items that will
maintain integrity without maintenance, they are adaptable to new conditions. The drive
mechanism and electronics associated will probably need to be updated.
The most interesting concept about this, in the author’s opinion, will be recycling the
pedestal and footing. Since Catalina is sensitive to digging and trenching of land, it would be
interesting to analyze how these footings can be used to reduce impact on the land. Instead
of time used digging, trenching, mixing and pouring concrete into formwork, these could be
lifted and set in place by cranes. Since a crane will be needed for installation of the
heliostats and tower, it is not a “new cost” to the project if it is used to install pre-poured
footings. Furthermore, it may be possible to reduce the amount of digging and let the footing
be set onto level ground, allowing it to be partially or fully exposed. The land itself is at low
risk of major earthquake damage and has solid soil, according to an Environmental Impact
Report found:
“Although the project site, like much of California, is located in a seismically active
area, the site is not located on or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Act earthquake fault
zone. No known major active or potentially active faults are mapped on Catalina
Island. On the basis of this available information, the hazard from ground rupture is
considered negligible.” (source lost)
“The U. S. Department of Agriculture designates the soil at the project site as
4M2A/75G2, which is shallow, medium grained, usually loam or silt loam soil,
underlain by crystalline rock. The potential for soil expansion of this type of soil is
relatively low.” (source lost)

(Unfortunately the source of these EIR quotes was accidentally lost during the research.)
This scenario may offer a solution that is more sensitive to the micro and macro
environment. Also, Catalina does not seem to have a large scale concrete facility in the
173

island infrastructure. Therefore there would be a large amount of mixing done on site. This
mixing by hand would prove difficult and incredibly slow. It also would be difficult to have
quality control on the proper mix of structurally rated concrete. This would lead to large
amounts of island disruption and island pollution in the forms of GhG’s, waste, and
consumption by workers over long periods of time. Recycled footings would be like “pre-fab”
allowing installation to happen quickly and easily and in this case very cheaply. Also, as
seen before water is not abundant on the island. So the fresh water needed to mix the
concrete would have to be created from the desalination plant. This would add a drastic
increase in electricity use and therefore a drastic increase in emissions from diesel engines.
Reducing the number of workers and the amount of time they are on the island will
have a positive impact on the environment. According to Environmental Impact Reports,
workers generally would take the Catalina Express from the mainland for the work week, and
then return to the mainland. This means that every worker every weekend creates an
increased demand on transportation. The workers need temporary housing which could
upset the local environment and economy if the construction takes years. Since Catalina
has a strong tourist season, it would be disruptive to house construction workers in rental
units that normally would hold tourists that are willing to spend large amounts of money. PV
Installations would have a drastically reduced impact on the environment and economy
during the construction phase. Unlike CSP plants, these facilities can be installed over time.
CSP plants produce no power until 100% completion. PV Plants can produce power from
the moment the individual panels are installed. So PV construction can be spaced out
requiring less impact. It also is common for tourist based economies to restrict construction
during the tourist season. In Jamaica, no major construction can take place from October
until the end of the tourist season. PV facilities could work around this schedule. CSP
would have to disrupt the local economy for at least one season, if not two. But hopefully
174

recycling the footings and heliostat structures will allow major construction on the field to be
completed in minimal time, therefore reducing the amount of workers needed on the island.

Figure 42: BNSF Railway Map - Route from Daggett to Long Beach (BNSF, 2008)
Further, the issue of transporting the heliostat infrastructure from Daggett, CA to
Catalina needs to be addressed. The BNSF Railway has a station located in Daggett, CA.
The main junction of 3 main tracks is located at Barstow. The shipping from Daggett can
travel to Barstow, then down the main line straight to the port of Long Beach. From the port
of Long Beach, the necessary sized ship can be used to transport the equipment to Avalon
Harbor. As can be seen in the figure above, the transportation conditions are almost perfect
considering the situation. Furthermore, due to the close railroad proximity there will be no
175

additional costs or environmental impacts due to trucking equipment. Most new construction
materials would have to be trucked from warehouse to shipping location. To transport fully
built equipment will have a slightly higher cost. This is because the equipment cannot be
efficiently placed into transportation containers. Because the items were not designed to be
pre-fab and shipped, they did not size them to fit nicely into 7’-8” wide by 7’9” high by 40’-0”
deep container. The estimated size of the heliostat “face” is 22’-0” x 22’-0”. If the heliostat
would be broken down, the mirrors would be removed and efficiently stored. The heliostat
“face” framing could be disassembled and efficiently stored. The rack assembly and
pedestal could be removed and stored efficiently. Finally the footings could pose a potential
problem. Since there is no documentation on the footing size, it is impossible to say if it will
fit into a container. But, the conclusion so far is that the heliostats can be dismantled into
“basic” components and stored efficiently for shipping. Since new heliostats would have to
be shipped in similar ways, there is no reason to believe this would be any more or less
expensive. The only area where cost would increase would be in the shipping of the
footings. Normal cement can be efficiently shipped because it is dry and bagged, having a
drastically reduced weight without water, gravel and/or sand. The gravel and/or sand can
also be shipped, if not found on the island. The water, as mentioned earlier, will be
generated from the desalination plant. So the reduced cost in shipping concrete bags may
only be a first cost. Once to the island, the hand mixing would add hundreds of man hours in
labor, as well as the cost of generating fresh water for the mix and the workers. The final
cost of shipping cement bags may be more expensive than shipping pre-formed footings.
There will be a cost for the dismantling of the heliostat array. It is difficult to estimate
this cost. Though it is safe to predict it will be a drastically lower cost than producing a brand
new heliostat array. The remainder of this paragraph is “educated guesses” based on the
author’s construction experience. Removing or dismantling is a relatively quick and easy
176

procedure. As can be seen in the recent movement to recycling building materials, there is a
low added cost to “removing” materials as opposed to “demolishing” them. In this case, the
heliostat mirrors and “face” framework are more sensitive and need additional care in
dismantling. They will require care and time so that when they reach Catalina, the mirrors
and “face” structure can be re-assembled with little damage. Since the motor and
electronics will most likely be replaced, there is little need for high skilled labor once the
mirrors and face are dismantled. The motor parts can be gutted and dismantled, and the
pedestal can be prepared for shipment. Removing the footings will prove slightly more
difficult due to size and weight. Using either a "gradall" or crane, depending on size of
footing, the footings can be lifted from the soil and set into place for shipping. As mentioned
before, these are all educated guesses and are open for discussion.
The feasibility of recycling the Solar Two facility seems very high when compared to
installing a new system. In fact, there are very few reasons to use a “brand new” heliostat
field for a CSP project. But the question still lies in which form of Solar Power is best for
Catalina Island? In this case, shipping an installing PV Arrays would most likely be
drastically cheaper. A PV heliostat array, like in Nellis, could be installed in Catalina at a
drastically reduced transportation cost. This is mainly due to the amount of concrete needed
to install a project of this type. For CSP projects, if a footing is undersized and a mirror sinks
to its side, the reflected sun may miss the receiver. This is because of the distance from
mirror to receiver. If the mirror tilts 1°, then over the distance the reflected sunlight may only
hit a portion of the receiver, causing high efficiency losses. But if a PV array sinks 1°, the
loss is directly proportional. Since the Nellis AFB Solar Arrays use a distributed weight
system, the footings are very small. They are not dug and poured like typical footings.
Instead they are pre-fabricated and laid on graded and compacted soil. One option would
be to pre-fabricate and ship the footings at a relatively low cost. A second option, since the
177

footing sizes are drastically smaller, would be to pre-fabricate on the Island. It would result
in lower shipping costs and would require smaller amounts of water and labor demand.

Figure 43: Nellis AFB Solar Array (Nellis AFB, 2008)

178

Figure 44: Typical Rooftop PV Mounting system (Unirac, 2006)
A Local PV installation would require dramatically less concrete and shipping than
either of the previous scenarios. Since the “foundations” of the PV installation are rooftops,
that have already been built and there is no need for additional heavy equipment. The PV
panels can be installed directly onto existing, and new rooftops without adding large
amounts of stress on the structure. The Kyocera KD210GX-LP panel only weighs 1.05
pounds per square foot (the panel is 17.5 square feet weighing 18.5 pounds). Additionally,
the mounting devices are phenomenally smaller and lighter compared to an entire heliostat
structure. As can be seen in the above figure, the aluminum mounting devices are designed
to be minimal size and weight. The installation of the PV panels can also be done with
minimal impact on the environment and economy. Since there will be no heavy machinery
needed, or massive amounts of construction going on, the work can continue year round
with minimal disturbance. Additionally, the labor does not need to be supplied completely
from the mainland. The skill of installation can be taught to local island residents. This
would not only support the local economy during installation, but it would also support the
economy in the future for maintenance and upgrades. If local residents can work on the
installations, then there will be no future need for transporting skilled labor from the
mainland. This will have an additional benefit of reducing long term environmental impact.

179

Chapter 9: Energy Modeling Software
Energy modeling software is a powerful tool for environmentally friendly design.
Programs such as HEED, eQuest, Ectotect and many others on the market offer energy and
lighting simulations that can tell a designer many things. The programs can give accurate
efficiency ratings and energy savings for a building’s design. It also allows for instant
manipulation of the building to test different construction scenarios and see which work most
efficiently for the climate. Other benefits from certain programs include lighting design
analysis. They allow the designer to simulate the amounts of natural light that will enter a
space. This can help reduce artificial lighting use and produce interior environments that
feel more natural. These are just a few benefits to energy modeling. The software available
today focuses mainly on single family and multi-family residential as well as low to medium
rise office buildings. This is because the majority of buildings built in today’s society are
these three typologies. Developers across the world look to these 3 forms of building to
generate the greatest profits for themselves. The purpose of these programs is to use the
developer to generate a better environment for the future.
The program this study will focus on is HEED (HEED, 2007). HEED was developed
at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) department of Architecture and Design. It
is constantly under revision by the staff, primarily Murray Milne. The current version is
HEED 3 (build 36) released on July 25, 2007. As for a description of the program, the
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division notes that:
“This user-friendly energy design tool shows how much money can save by making
changes to your home. HEED (Home Energy Efficient Design) works equally well for
remodeling projects or designing new buildings. You begin by giving four facts about
your building, and then the expert system creates two basecase buildings, one that
meets the energy code and another that incorporates more energy efficiency
features. Then you can draw in your home's proposed floorplan, rotate it to the
correct orientation, then click and drag windows to their exact location on each
facade. Copy this to successive schemes to test various passive solar strategies
180

such as window shading, thermal mass, night ventilation, and high performance
glazing. For basic users the easy-to-understand bar charts show how energy bills
change with each different design. For experienced users there are more detailed
data input options, plus dozens of 3D graphic outputs that reveal subtle differences
in of building performance. Clients will especially appreciate how these graphics
clearly show the benefits of good energy efficient design.” (DOE & EERE, 2006)

The software has built-in the data to simulate the 16 California Climate Zones (CEC,
2006). It also has the energy rate structures for California locations built into the software in
order to give accurate cost savings for design upgrades. Therefore, the simulation results
are very accurate. The software is built to use the weather data files from the Energy Plus
website. HEED is also able to run simulations on any other climate by downloading the
appropriate weather data files from the Energy Plus website. Once a new location’s weather
data is loaded, the user must manually adjust the energy tariff rates to get an accurate cost
savings analysis. Energy Plus weather data was also used to determine the climates for
Seville, Los Angeles, El Toro, Nellis and Boulder City in the case study chapter. That makes
the weather data used for most of this study 100% compatible. It all came from the same
source, Energy Plus, and it all can be referenced off each other without having to adjust
data. The only data not from Energy Plus is the information from the Kyocera PV calculator.
Actually, it is not specified where the weather data for the Kyocera PV Calculator comes
from. But, since the Kyocera data was only compared to itself, there was no cross-source
adjustments made.
181

Figure 45: 16 California Climate Zones (CEC, 2006)
California can be broken down into 16 climate zones. These are 16 different
climates that range from dry, hot desert to cold, wet mountains. The coastal region of
Southern California is listed as Climate Zone 6. According to the listing by city, Catalina is
located in Climate Zone 6. El Toro is technically located in Climate Zone 8, but it lies right
on the border of coastal Zone 6 and inland Zone 8. Therefore the weather data obtained
through Energy Plus, recorded at El Toro MCAS (Military Base), will accurately reflect the
similar weather conditions to Catalina. This slight distance out of Climate Zone 6 may help
182

explain the slightly different weather conditions found when trying to estimate solar radiation
for the island.

Figure 46: HEED generated 3D Model of Building Simulation (HEED, 2007)
The first analysis run with HEED is on an existing building located in El Toro, CA.
The case study building, which is the house the author grew up in, is located roughly 10
miles inland, and about 2 miles from El Toro MCAS. The home was built in the mid 1970’s
in the 92630 zip code. It is a pitched roof home that used typical 2x4 constructions with no
insulation in either the attic or walls. It was also built on a raised foundation and used large
single pane windows. The first phase of the study was to generate a 3D model that was
accurate to the actual home. This involved match window sizes, roof and wall types, as well
as floor and foundation types. The house itself was input as accurately as possible to reflect
the construction methods used. The home itself was built in a heavily wooded area, full of
eucalyptus trees. For this reason very large single pane windows were installed on the
183

south side to let as much natural light in as possible. The trees provided large amounts of
shade in the summer, keeping the temperatures tolerable. The trees were so dense in fact
that most groundcover plants, such as grass, could not grow due to lack of sunlight. The
home still required large amounts of cooling. During the winter the house would become
extremely cold and required a lot of heating. Due to the open floor plan and large two story
living room space, HVAC was forced to work extra hard to maintain temperatures. Also,
there was only one “zone” which conditioned every room in the house at once. But as
mentioned before the temperatures in the summer were tolerable thanks to the shade from
trees, and winter required large amounts of heating.
In the late 1990’s the city was plagued by an insect that caused the death of many
Eucalyptus trees. So many trees were infected so quickly that you could watch the green
leaves turn brown tree after tree. Within months many trees were infected and had to be
removed and destroyed. The unpredicted effect was the temperature change due to this
action. The sunlight was finally reaching the homes and the ground. So much so that plant
life that never grew in the area finally started sprouting without any assistance. The removal
of the trees also allowed sunlight to heat the homes in the summer to unbearable
temperatures. The winter allowed more light into the home for a few hours, but due to the
low sun angles the existing trees would shade the homes in the early and late day. So this
ecological change exposed the effects of insufficient construction.
The first two schemes generated in this study are automatically created by the
HEED software. Scheme 1 is the building being constructed at today’s Title 24 energy code.
The second scheme is the building being constructed using high efficiency construction.
Scheme 3 is the user inputted scheme that reflects the actual construction methods used
when built. Notice that the “Savings Compared to Scheme 1” is a negative 16% saving in
Climate Zone 8, where it was built. The remaining schemes, 4 through 9 are progressive
184

upgrades to construction. Scheme 4 upgrades basic items, such as double paned windows,
interior shades and bringing insulation + HVAC up to current code. Scheme 5 involves
these same upgrades, plus making all HVAC and appliances EnergyStar rated. Also,
replacing bulbs with CFL and insulating hot water pipes. Scheme 6 installs eSquared
windows, solid drapes, upgrading insulation to 150% and using maximum efficiency HVAC.
Scheme 7 is the first Scheme to involve major construction changes. Until now,
each item was an upgrade on the existing plan. This was done to create a scenario for
upgrading a home, prior to construction, without having to change any structural documents.
So far, without altering major construction the Schemes are able to reduce energy use by
60%. Scheme 7 uses all prior upgrades plus using a slab on grade. Scheme 8 adds high
mass walls, such as CMU. Scheme 9 has maximum upgrades and energy efficiency
standards. The difference in energy use from Scheme 3: Existing House to Scheme 6:
Basic + Energy + Upgrade are a total of 56% reductions. The difference from Scheme 6 to
Scheme 9: Best Scenario is only 10% reductions.
Table 50: HEED Simulation of El Toro - Climate Zone 8 (HEED, 2007) (Swanson, 2007)

185

Table 51: Case Study Home: Energy Code for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Energy Code = Blue Bars
186

Table 52: Case Study Home: High Efficiency for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
187

Table 53: Case Study Home: Existing Construction for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
188

Table 54: Case Study Home: Basic Upgraded Construction for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
189

Table 55: Case Study Home: Upgraded + EnergyStar for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
190

Table 56: Case Study Home: Further Upgraded Construction for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
191

Table 57: Case Study Home: Upgraded + Slab on Grade for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
192

Table 58: Case Study Home: Slab + High Mass Wall for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
193

Table 59: Case Study Home: Maximum Upgraded for 16 zones (Swanson, 2007)

Scheme = Blue Bars, Energy Code =Purple Bars
194

Table 60: HEED Simulation of Avalon, CA - Climate Zone 6 (HEED, 2007) (Swanson, 2007)

This is significant to Catalina’s building infrastructure as well. The above table uses
the same home as the case study building set in the Avalon climate zone. There are some
noticeable differences right away. The existing home construction actually performs above
the current energy codes. As will be seen in the following pages, it is not uncommon for
efficiency upgrades to work in some climates, and not in others. A quick example of why, is
that it would not make sense to install an upgraded air conditioning in a colder climate. The
efficiency upgrades from Scheme 3 to Scheme 6 are still above 50% improvement. In
Climate Zone 8, Scheme 6 performs at 56% increased efficiency. That means the total
energy bill would be 44% of the current cost residents pay.
If the Electricity consumption reduction is calculated (from column 1) Scheme 6
would only use 30% of the energy of the Existing Building. If the Scheme 1: Energy Code
building is used, then the Scheme 6 building would use 21% of the total electricity. So the
average energy use would be 25.5% of what is currently consumed on the island. This
number may also in fact be higher than that estimate. According to the heating fuel
195

consumption data, Catalina uses 43% electricity (City-data.com, 2008). Los Angeles uses
20% electricity for heating (City-data.com, 2008). Commonly, natural gas is used for heating
because it is far more efficient. It is not clear if natural gas, propane, or what type of “gas” is
used. But Catalina has to pay higher rates for the gas due to shipping. More importantly
they would have to pay for the gas supply infrastructure to be built and maintained. This
would include a piped systems or upgraded storage and delivery system. Both cases
require higher volumes of heating gas to be shipped. While high volumes of diesel are
already being shipped, it is actual more efficient because Catalina uses the existing electrical
grid to supply heating. The loss in heating fuel efficiency does not outweigh the cost of a
new added infrastructure. Since HEED does not have Avalon’s specific heating fuel data
programmed into its system, it assumes 20% usage. Catalina uses 200% the assumed
usage of electricity for fuel. This would result in half of the gas reduction figures to be
applied to the electricity. Therefore the actual reductions in electricity consumption may be
upward of 23% to 24%. But for easy calculations, 25% will be assumed. As a note it was
discovered later that HEED does offer an electrical heating option, but the study had been
completed and did not take this into account.
If these building upgrades were installed on an entire Island residential overhaul,
there would be tremendous cost. But as seen in the earlier chapters, installing CSP or PV to
power the residential sector is not a cheap option. Assuming the overhaul took place; all
homes would now use 25% of their prior electricity consumption. That would be like
removing 1,040 of the 1386 “existing” homes from the island. As seen in the analysis of
Catalina chapter, the desalination plant can be upgraded to reduce its power consumption.
As calculated earlier, if 1% of the plant’s production is eliminated, that is like removing 1.5
homes from the island. The plant currently has a “salt water to potable water” conversion
efficiency of 27%. The efficiency rates for modern desalination plants are up to 50%. In
196

order to “remove” the final 25% from the grid, the plant would have to increase conversion
efficiency by 17%. This can be achieved through co-generation systems as well as water
conservation methods. Another method of reducing electrical consumption for the plant
would be to use solar hot water heating. Solar hot water is currently more efficient than
power generated through PV cells. This means that for every watt of energy that hits the
receiver, more energy is captured. It can bring water to temperatures of 140° to 160° during
the daytime. By pre-heating the salt water, pressure can be increased and increased and
reduce the electrical loads.
Through energy efficiency measures applied only to the residential units and
desalination plants, Catalina Island could possibly remove 28% of its current total electricity
consumption. That is the equivalent to removing all residential units from the island. The
question lies in overall cost for these reductions. As seen before, in order to install PV
systems that remove a home from the grid there would be a total cost of $36,000 in PV
modules plus a minimum of $2,500 in battery backup. That is a minimum cost of $38,500
per household to remove it from the grid. If the residential unit upgrade measures combined
with desalination upgrades end up cheaper than $38,500 per household, than it would be a
better residential solution than PV.
If these upgrades can also be applied to commercial units at an assumed efficiency
of even 50% reduction, the island could reduce its total power consumption from 33.3 million
kWh to 12 million kWh. That is an overall reduction in power use of 74%. This would be the
equivalent of installing $138 million worth of PV modules. That would translate to $100,000
per household. It would also be the equivalent of installing one PS10 facility onto Catalina at
the cost of $41 million, equaling $30,000 per household. None of these figures include
shipping and installation costs. Both of which would be high costs due to the fragile nature
of the material and the technical expertise needed to install much of it.
197

Chapter 10: Conclusions
Research Summary
Energy legislation has made major leaps and bounds trying to get to a more diverse
and renewable profile. America still trails behind many major European nations, but there is
a growing urge to amend this issue. On a national level, recently we have seen growing
political and financial interests being put into programs such as Epact 2005, ACI & AEI. This
is an important issue to the growth of the renewable sector. As discussed, coal holds a tight
grip on power production due to the shear “dirt cheap” cost of coal fired electricity.
Renewable competition such as Solar Power does not stand a chance unless it can bring its
prices down by 50% or more. As seen after PURPA and the following renewable energy
push, financial assistance from the government, state and utilities allowed technology
advances. When the funding disappeared, so did solar power. Currently the buildings built
or retrofitted thanks to the funding provided by the energy crisis in the late 1970’s / early
1980’s are undergoing major remodels. Many of the buildings with old solar water heaters
are being disconnected. After years of neglect on the equipment and years of neglect on the
public education, these systems are seen as an old technology. Ironically enough this is an
accurate statement, solar heating dates back beyond modern civilization. But this ancient,
simple technology is the key to be new future.
Why abandon coal though? The mainstream media has been touting “clean coal” as
our country’s savior. The news describes it as the next step to clean energy for America.
Clean Coal though is only “clean” when compared to its big brother, existing coal fired
power. Many other forms of power such as solar, CSP solar, wind, geothermal and
hydroelectric produce relatively zero amounts of pollution. Clean Coal is only “clean” when
compared to dirty coal. But, clean coal is still an important piece of a diverse energy
198

portfolio. When talking to Jeff Goodell, writer of “Big Coal”, he stated that after all the
engineering and advances, Clean Coal electricity costs twice as much as dirty coal. This
actually has a beneficial impact on the renewable portfolio. It brings the price of coal up and
starts to level out the playing field for renewable energy.
Until the playing field is leveled by new coal fired regulations they will always have
the advantage. Both new Clean Coal power plants combined with new, strict “dirty coal”
regulation is needed. Dirty coal fired power plants use their age to navigate around pollution
and efficiency standards set in 1970. New regulations need to be made in the form of post
production taxes and tariffs on pollution from the creation of energy. This would start to
force the coal industry to change from the top down, instead of bottom up.
What about the private sector? The federal, state and utility interests already exist
and are putting large amounts of funding behind renewable energy. Will the private sector
follow suit? Based on the research there is a strong implication that private funding will soon
follow and become a secondary movement in renewable. The hope is that the private sector
will already be heavily invested in the product so federal funding can cut back. This also
proposes a new form of private ownership in America; Ownership of Power Generation.
Until recent decades the ability to own power generation was limited to purchasing wood for
the stove or furnace. This though was still dependant on outside sources to provide the fuel
at a cost. Now, a new ability is arising for private investors to own power generation in the
form of large scale solar. This can be seen in Chevron’s investment in 1 mW generation
facilities being installed onto LACCD school buildings. Chevron owns the solar panels, sells
the power at reduced cost to the school and gets to use the tax credits. So in the end, the
school buys power at cheaper rates in exchange for leasing Chevron the roof space and
giving the tax credits. Both parties win in multiple ways. This is a perfect example of how
private investments can be profitable for both profit driven investors and low income
199

consumers. Los Angeles has hit a point where the building market has slumped.
Renewable investment could potentially provide a new means of boosting the economy.
The concept of investing in power generation in the commercial sector is mainly
profitable to large scale investments. Smaller scale commercial investors would benefit
more to providing their own buildings with solar. The investment is not limited to Solar
Panels though. The panels provide power, but the amount of power used by the building
can be reduced by investing in efficient building design. Like the commercial sector, the
residential sector has similar investment issues. Full scale renewable investment is only
available to the higher income citizens. Lower to medium income citizens are faced with a
difficult reality that their ability to be “green” is drastically limited. This was shown as issues
in income levels compared to housing and living costs. The average citizen does not have
the income to invest in items such as EnergyStar Refrigerators, HVAC, Washing / Dryer
unless they are forced to replace a broken piece of equipment. But the most important
finding in this research was the fact that 51% of all Los Angeles citizens rent their homes or
apartments. That means that 51% of all citizen’s do not own their Refrigerators, HVAC,
Washer / Dryer or other amenities. On top of that, they do not own the roof space to install
Solar Panels. This means that no matter what the citizen’s financial status is, they cannot
invest in being “green”. The author himself in the last years has strived to be as green as
possible. After reduce, reuse and recycle, the only options that were achievable were
buying CFL bulbs and investing in the “Green Power Program” through LADWP. This
program allows the citizen to demand power to be supplied through renewable sources. The
program works by a method of “power offsetting” in which the renewable supplier sends
power to the nearest customer, instead of the customer investing in the program. Even
though the renewable power never reaches the investing consumer physically, it does
200

through theory. If this system can be used by LADWP, SMUD and other Utilities across the
country at an average additional cost of $0.03 per kWh, then “power offsetting” must work.
The success of the green power program, combined with the legislative state of
affairs and interests through private investment convinced the author that the idea of
providing new typologies of green investment would be successful. Next, the concept of a
new green investment typology needed to be carefully researched to produce a cost-
effective design. The initial concept behind the thesis was to design a Solar Farm that sold
individual PV panels to consumers, instead of the consumer buying panels and installing
them locally on rooftops. The concept was that the Local PV would suffer mainly from
issues of poor weather conditions and improper installation resulting in the panels not facing
the correct direction at the correct tilts. This, combined with issues of shading by
surrounding buildings or trees combined with losses due to lack of cleaning and
maintenance. To remedy this issue, a Solar Farm would provide maximum solar exposure
combined with proper installation, minimal shading and professional maintenance. The first
step was to compare the installation of Local PV to PV installations on a Solar Farm.
This research proved that the weather conditions combined with proper installation
made a dramatic difference in generation ability. Even with maximum transmission losses,
PV on a Solar Farm in Daggett produces upwards of 6% more than Local PV in Los
Angeles. This made definite conclusions on the success of isolated, centralized PV Solar
installations. But, PV installations suffered due to the high cost of refining silicon to produce
PV panels. Further investigations on different technologies led to the development of a
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) alternative. Since both options operate off of solar
radiation, they would receive sunlight, and therefore be able to generate energy at equal
times. As a note, CSP has “thermal storage” which works by storing energy generated
instead of using right away to create electricity. Based on the case studies, the average
201

installation cost in $/mW of CSP was approx half the cost of PV. If the large commercial
investor or even the small private residential investor had an option between Solar PV and
CSP at half the cost, there is no doubt where they would put their money.
The cost of CSP power has been documented and established to be half the cost of
PV solar power in installation cost. The next step was to use Catalina Island as a case study
to determine if these predictions are applicable in a real world scenario. The applicability of
PV was studied using the Kyocera PV Calculator. This not only sized the PV array, but it
also had the ability to establish capitol costs, rebated costs and monthly costs based on
income and loan payments. It is rather advanced software that is free to use. As a note,
federal, state and utility incentives were not calculated. This is because, as example, in
Avalon a 7 mWh PV array costs roughly $10,000 more than the same PV array if it were
installed in Los Angeles. Next year, these costs could be completely different if the Fed,
State or Utility changes their rebate system. So to get accurate costs that can be compared
1 to 1 with CSP plants, they were omitted.
Residential Local PV was studied as well as commercially sized PV facilities were
studied. Both of these studies were based on an installation cost of $8 per watt dc, which
has around a 25 year payback. To supply power for the residential units would cost $56,000
per household. But, the residential sector only accounted for 27% of the entire energy use
for the island. Commercial facilities would have o account for the remaining 73%. The result
ended up in total costs upward of $209 million for the entire island, including 1 day of battery
storage. This translated to a nearly $150,000 per household cost to power the entire island.
Next a large scale PV installation was conceptually installed on the island, using the Nellis
PV Solar Array as a subject. The results cost upward of $179 million, including 1 day of
battery storage. This translates to a cost of $130,000 per household to power the entire
island.
202

An analysis of placing a CSP facility on Catalina was then made. In order for a CSP
facility to be theoretically installed on Catalina, the facility had to be scaled to meet
Catalina’s weather conditions. This process applied solar radiation reductions to the CSP
plant to determine the annual production for a plant of equal size in that location. PS10 cost
$41 million and it was calculated to be able to produce 9.7 mW peak and an annual
generation of 22.5 million kWh on Avalon. First, the islands peak generation capacity is
currently 9.3 kW, so that rating is met. Secondly, the island demands 35 million kWh which
is an additional 55% generation capacity. The difficult part about simply scaling a CSP
project is that the project’s construction, engineering and budget are not “simple”. Without
further research, it is not known if 35 million kWh can be achieved with adding additional
heliostats and upgrading engineering. It may be entirely possible that diminishing returns
would dictate that a second facility would be more efficient than adding row after row of
heliostats. As seen in the documentation, the further a heliostat gets from a receiver, the
lower the efficiency the field has. To simplify the issue, instead of scaling PS10 to 100% of
the power demand, it was simply figured that two power plants would be built. This brought
the total power supply to 128% of the islands needs. It also was able to provide nighttime
generation due to thermal mass storage. The total cost for the two facilities would be $82
million, which would be a cost of $60,000 per household.
Another issue was the land use of PV compared to a CSP facility. It was found that
on average a CSP facility heliostat field requires 20% more land per mW than a PV heliostat
array. To power Catalina the Kyocera PV calculator estimated you would need nearly 2
million sq ft of PV, or 46 acres. The Nellis Solar array was estimated at a size of 1.5 million
sq ft of PV, or 36 acres. But, because of the heliostat array spacing, in order to have
maximum exposure and prevent self shading, the PV would need to be installed on 225.5
acres. To power the island using the 100% PS10 estimate, it would require 272 total acres,
203

which is 20% higher than the Nellis estimates. The initial thought is that the additional 20%
is an insignificant figure compared to the 50% cost savings. But the Kyocera estimate of 46
acres to power the entire island does not include “heliostat spacing”. This size is based on
the concept of installing the PV row after row on angled roofs. But spacing of 50% can be
added on assuming roofs were at improper angles and orientation, or they are flat roofs.
These would require mounting systems to correct the listed issues and achieve maximum
exposure. So the size of the PV array would be a total of 69 acres. This is 30% of the Nellis
estimate and 25% of the PS10 estimate. Additionally, the Kyocera panels can be installed
on rooftops that are already built. This means that very low amounts of “undeveloped” land
will be used. Also, it means a drastic reduction in materials due to the “foundation” being the
rooftop itself. Also, both the Nellis and PS10 facilities require large and heavy heliostat
structures. Since the panels weight just over 1 pound per square foot, their mounting is very
light and the rooftops require no structural upgrading.
After all of this is considered, even without reduction estimates to bring the 128%
generation capacity CSP project to 100% generation capacity, the “per household” cost of
two PS10 projects is less than half the price of any form of PV facility. If the PS10 project
was simply scaled to meet Catalina’s needs, the total bill would come out to be $63.7 million,
which would be a cost of $46,000 per household to power the entire island. The interesting
fat about this figure is when you compare it to installing a PV facility that will only power a
residential unit. The PV array would cost $36,000 and require a 1 day battery backup at a
cost of $2,500. This brings the total to $38,500 to power a household. For an additional
20%, or $7,500, a household on Catalina can invest in a CSP Power plant that would power
their home and the rest of the entire island.
From an investor point of view CSP facilities offer lower startup cost and faster
returns. If a PV installation costs $8 per watt and has a 25 year return, than a CSP
204

installation costing $4.2 per watt will have a 13 year return. An additional benefit to investing
in CSP systems involves the technology curve of the project. PV is a young technology that
is constantly advancing. Since CSP uses mirrors, the mirror technology has little room for
improvement. Currently the major efficiency improvements take place in the receiver and
engineering behind the salt and steam systems. An important figure to be noted is the
heliostat field layout accounts for 42% of the total installation cost of a project. That means
the heliostat array system is a very valuable element of the project. Also, since the
efficiencies of mirrors are nearly at maximum, they have the same value now as it will 20
years from now. The heliostat array built 20 years ago and used in Solar Two had a
“reflectivity” of 90.7%, with a “mirror cleanliness” of 95%. Solar Tres which is under
construction is estimated to have a reflectivity of 93.5%, with a mirror cleanliness of 95%.
Based on this, the concept of recycling Solar Two’s heliostat array and using it for
the Catalina facility was analyzed. It is already known that the mirrors and system have the
ability to perform at today’s standards. The question lies in the feasibility of dismantling and
transporting the facility. Since the BNSF railroad has a rail station located in Daggett, the
materials can be shipped straight to the port of Long Beach with minimal trucking and
therefore minimal pollution. The heliostats can also be broken down to fit into shipping
containers as well. The issue brought up in this phase of research was the issue of
concrete. The footings for the Solar Two project could be theoretically transported as well, if
they are small enough to ship. Since the information on their size could not be found, this
can’t be determined. But an interesting subject that arose from this study was the fact that
Catalina does not have a major concrete mixing facility, as well as they have a limited fresh
water supply. This meant that all fresh concrete would be mixed by hand on the island with
water created using the desalination plant. That would have major impacts on the islands
pollution and environment. The increased labor demand is one factor, but the energy
205

intensive desalination process would cause major impacts. Even to the point where water
and or energy supply may be limited to the island in order to be re-routed to the construction
site. It was found that the CSP facility would require the largest amount of concrete, of
which large amounts would have to be mixed on site for the engineering and storage units.
The Nellis AFB facility would require drastically less amounts of concrete and require zero
on site mixing. The footings for their PV heliostats are small ad pre-fabricated. But as
mentioned earlier, the Kyocera PV installations require zero concrete since the exiting
rooftops are their footings. This means drastically reduced environmental impacts to the
island.
The final conclusion on recycling Solar Two was that it would be a complete success
if a CSP facility was to be installed. Since heliostat arrays, new or used would have to be
shipped to the island there is a nearly equal cost. In fact, shipping manufactured parts from
several sources would undoubtedly have larger environmental impacts. Shipping from
multiple locations would result in multiple shipments made by trucking companies since most
locations are not in direct proximity to a railway station like Daggett. The costs associated
with new parts at inflated prices and multiple shipping costs through slower and less efficient
means would help offset the costs of dismantling Solar Two. In the end Solar Two’s
heliostat array could be constructed and achieve the same efficiencies of a new heliostat
system. The question comes down to who currently owns the facility and at what costs
would they let it be recycled. Considering the fact that the DOE put major investment in and
so did the local utilities, it can be assumed the notion of recycling the facility would
encourage them to sell the heliostats at relatively cheap cost in exchange for the PR
associated with the project. Additionally, since only the heliostat array is being recycled, a
deal can be worked out with UC Davis so that they can keep the tower and 8% of the total
206

heliostats necessary to continue their Air Cherenkov Telescope research. This would b a
solution in which every party benefits.
The final study was to test the effects of efficient building techniques and compare
their savings to the proposed project. Using HEED it was determined that by installing non-
structural building improvements a structure in Avalon can reduce its electricity consumption
to 25% of the current usage. Unfortunately, the cost of adding these improvements either
during new construction or through remodeling have not been priced out. If the
improvements cost less than 75% of the $38,500 PV costs ($23,000 total) then the reduction
to 25% energy usage is more economical through construction than through purchasing PV.
But more interestingly by combining the 75% building reductions with efficiency upgrades to
the desalination plant, it is possible to reduce enough island electricity consumption to
figuratively “remove” all residential power use from the grid. If the island as a whole had
implemented energy saving techniques in construction, then the total power use would only
be 26% of its current levels, equaling 12 million kWh. This would be the equivalent of
installing $138 million worth of PV modules on the island.

PV vs. CSP
The research and calculations point out the positive aspects and drawbacks to the
three solar power options presented. A CSP facility has drastically reduced installation
costs, but it has large environmental impact costs. A large scale PV facility has high
installation costs but heavily reduced environmental impact. Finally, a Local PV option has
the highest cost and the lowest environmental impact. For a CSP facility, it uses the most
acreage per mW of any option. It also has major impacts during the construction phase,
especially on Catalina where water has to be produced through desalination. This also
207

brings up issues of desert installations as well. In Saudi Arabia there is optimal solar
radiation. Because of that fact, there are little fresh water sources. Most of the water comes
from the desalination process. That means like Catalina, the impact of mixing concrete is
greater than in a location like Spain. Large scale PV requires large amounts of land, but
they are approx. 80% the size of CSP field (acre per mW). Since the PV heliostats can
operate at lower precision, the structures are drastically reduced in scale. This means that
the amount of material needed for construction, especially the concrete is drastically
reduced. The final option of Local Rooftop PV is the most expensive but has the least
environmental impact. The cost is only slightly higher than a large scale PV facility. This is
due to buying firstly in small scale and secondly, unlike large scale facilities the Local PV
panels are not able to be installed in a bulk, manufactured method. Each panel has to be
custom installed to have the correct orientation, pitch and site location. But since the PV
panel is installed on an existing structure, there is zero need for using “undeveloped” land.
As a note, none of the three options goes into details on the manufacturing prices behind the
mirror or PV panel. Both options require high tech manufacturing at high financial cost. It is
not determined what their manufactured environmental costs are.
There are major drawbacks in any PV installation due to the battery backup system.
PV does not work as well when you need battery backup, especially when batteries have a 7
year life. Batteries seem to be behind in their technology, but the future of hydrogen cells
and other advanced systems are trying to catch up. Ideally, PV works best in developed
areas where connecting to the power grid can be used as your “battery”. That would allow
other, diverse power sources to provide energy during nighttime or low sunlight. In the case
of this study, the trick is that it is an “all or nothing” comparison. On Avalon, in this study,
there will be no diverse power supply to sustain during off-generation hours. With CSP there
is a “battery” inherently built into the system with the thermal storage. But with PV
208

installations, the battery is an added cost of roughly 6.5% for one day. In this case, PV
appears to only be an efficient source of power in rural areas, such as campgrounds, that
draw low amounts of power and require small amounts of generation and battery to run self-
sufficiently. Avalon is too developed, as well as the core “downtown” area of Two Harbors.
They both are already grid connected and could run off a CSP plant, during day and night,
far more efficiently than PV.
In conclusion, a CSP facility would be a superior financial investment. It would have
some environmental drawbacks, but they do not outweigh the cost savings. Additionally, the
money saved could be used remedy these issues and reduce the islands environmental
impact. With the islands current usage of 35 million kWh a large scale CSP facility would be
an ideal solar solution. Since a CSP facility appears to have a minimum generation of 22.5
million kWh, if Catalina’s power consumption dropped below that amount then power would
be wasted. Even if this was the case, PV would need the power consumption to drop to 12
million kWh to make a more practical financial investment.

Solar Power vs. Building Efficiently
$23,000 is not a large amount of money for a home remodel these days (75% of
$38,500 = $23,000). In fact, for a normal home the cost of removing drywall, adding
upgraded insulation and reinstalling drywall would most likely surpass this number by a large
amount. But there are some methods that can be implemented with relatively minimal costs.
Adding insulation into an attic and installing shading devices may help reduce power
consumption at a fraction of the cost of PV. The question comes down to how much
remodeling can be done and still cost less than adding Local PV. But if the remodeling was
209

completed and the island operated at 12 million kWh, then the CSP installation would
become financially impractical and Local PV would be the soundest investment for Catalina.

New Green Power Investment
The purpose of this entire investigation started with a simple notion that buying a
solar panel in the desert would be a better investment than buying a solar panel and putting
it on your roof. What seemed to be a rather straight forward idea, which would in turn have a
straight forward answer, turned into an exponentially complicated research study and data
analysis. Since the average Los Angeles citizen rents, that puts a large amount of push
behind this concept. For this population there is not much a “choice” in Green investment
available to them, it is little or nothing. The first step was to analyze the cost of making an
“electricity neutral” household. Without federal, state or utility incentives a Los Angeles
household would have to purchase a 4,000 dc watt system costing $32,000 ($8/watt
installation at a 25 year payback) to supply 100% annual power. That is a total of twenty
200 watt-dc panels. Each panel cost $1,600 rated at 200 watts dc producing a total of 318
watts ac in the Los Angeles climate. If this same installation were placed in a desert
location, it would cost $1,600 and produce a total of 372 watts ac. That is an increase of
17% electricity production. Even with a maximum 10% transmission loss, Daggett panels
out produce Los Angeles by 7%. This means for a $1,600 investment an average citizen
can make his money back in 21 years in Daggett instead of 25 years in Los Angeles.
The next discovery was the CSP power plant. The installation cost of CSP has been
proven to be half the cost of PV, meaning a shorter return on investment. For a $1,600
investment an average citizen can make his money back in 12.5 years with CSP instead of
25 years with PV. When using a PV panel as the commodity there were certain clear cut
210

terms. If you spend $1,600 then you get a solar panel. CSP though cannot be “sold” in this
clear cut amount. If 42% of a project cost goes into a CSP heliostat array and PS10 cost
$41 million that means the array cost $17.2 million. There are a total of 624 heliostats
resulting in a cost of $28,500 per heliostat. PS10 produces 25 million kWh annually in Spain
which means each heliostat generates 40,000 kWh annually. That is equal to 40 mWh,
which is enough electricity to power 6.66 households. But this does not include the
remaining costs from receiver and tower to storage and generation. So with CSP it is slightly
more challenging to make a clean cut sale of a panel.
The best way to sell CSP would be in a form of 200 watt “shares”. Currently a 200
watt “share” in a normal PV facility would cost the consumer $1,600, which comes to $8 per
watt. PS10 produces 11 mW at a cost of $41 million, which comes to $3.72 per watt. At that
price, a 200 watt “share” of a CSP plant would cost $745. For the same generation capacity,
the price is less than half of PV. In this scenario the PV facility would have an investment
return of 11.6 years. At these lower $/watt rates it is also possible to add additional taxes, or
fees, in order to compensate for the added environmental impact a CSP facility has over a
PV facility. In a location such as Daggett that fee may be nominal. But in Catalina that fee
may be higher due to the lack of resources. Additionally in order to make this service
available to a wider range of citizen, the “shares” could be sold at 100 watt or 50 watt
increments. This would bring the price down so that a population with lower income can
afford to buy shares. All of these calculations have been completed without Federal, State
or Utility incentives. If these rebates could be negotiated and established for a CSP “share”
system, that might help bring the cost to the consumer down even further.

211

As shares are bought from the CSP plant, it would potentially sell all of the available
wattage. This means when shares are purchased above the existing capacity, new
heliostats would need to be purchased. To account for the possibility of future growth, the
heliostat field layout design could be designed for “phases”. Also, the receiver, tower
storage and generation capacity could be engineered for expansion as well. That would
allow a plant to be built for an annual generation of 25 million kWh, but be able to expand to
an amount such as 35 million kWh over time. Since the heliostats “future shares” prices will
not have to include infrastructure costs (i.e. Receiver, tower, etc) they would have a surplus
income. This would help adjust for the heliostat efficiency losses due to increased distance
from the receiver. Additionally the added income from the future shares could be used as a
down payment on loans to construct future towers and facilities. When the money for a loan
is supplied by the owner, the public, then fewer “big money” investors are needed to startup
a project. That means the projects owner, the public, receives higher percentages of income
on the lifetime of the project.
The best part of this scenario is after 11.6 years is completed, the plant will produce
power indefinitely. Based on most bilateral power purchase agreements, the length of the
power purchase terms seem to be either 10 or 20 years. So that means in a 10 year period
the investment will almost be met. In a 20 year power purchase agreement the investor is
guaranteed a profit of 72% above their original investment. With the increasing cost of
power and possibility of US CO2 sequestering on the forefront (Baltimore, 2008) it can be
assumed that when the 20 year term is up, the next power contract will be sold at higher
prices (above inflation).
In order to help insure the purchase of power from this source, a new legislation
proposal can be made in order to demand the utility buy power from the sources. It could be
proposed that for every 200 watt share purchased from a citizen, 200 watts has to be
212

purchased from the Utility. There are benefits and drawbacks to this system. The initial
drawback is that this would negate long term contracts. But, if long term contracts were still
purchased, then this system could be beneficial when the CSP plant starts to expand
beyond its 1
st
phase capacity. If the plant expands beyond the contracted power supply,
then a legislation of this kind could force the utility to buy any additional power supply.
The author’s favorite scenario behind this entire proposal is the possibility for
doubling green power usage with this system. Since the CSP plant is not hooked into your
home, and it is not owned by the Utility, the power generated cannot be simply deducted
from your bill. So every term a check will be sent to the investor, much like the checks
received by shareholders. So as far as the Utility is concerned, they don’t know specifically
which citizens bought these CSP shares. If a citizen were to buy enough shares to make
their home electricity neutral, the Utility would not know it. The utility would only receive a
statement from the CSP facility that an additional 6 mWh was purchased. Now, if the
legislation was in place the Utility would then buy the power from the CSP plant. The next
step for the citizen would be to demand renewable power through the Green Power
Program. So this would then force the Utility to go and buy 6 mWh from a renewable power
source. The end result would be 12 mWh of electricity being purchased by the Utility
because of the actions of one 6 mWh residence.

Future Study
- Compare all of these finding to wind power. Using annual wind rose charts and decades of
wind data, a prediction of annual energy generation can be made. If the island was to run on
100% wind power what would the cost to resident be? Secondly, with added battery storage
what would the cost to resident be?
213

- If the island as a whole had implemented energy saving techniques, then the total
electricity use would only be 26% of its current levels. This would be the equivalent of
installing $138 million worth of PV modules. It would be interesting to investigate the amount
of energy efficient remodeling that could be done for $138 million. Would this funding be
better spent on PV modules or on existing building upgrades?
- Speak with representatives at Solucar or any CSP engineering facility to get a realistic
estimated cost of a 35 million kWh facility or Catalina Island. Try to find out a realistic price
and size of a facility that would be needed to power the island
- Speak with someone who has dealt with energy legislation to see if this system could
possibly work on a political level.
- A study on the daytime and nighttime power consumption would be helpful to properly size
a system. If this data was gathered, it may be possible to “tune” a PV system and reduce
the total number of PV panels and backup batteries. An example would be to connect all
buildings to the grid and use all the batteries, as whole entity, to power the infrastructure
instead of only powering a single building.
- Unfortunately, the research did not point out what the “calculated costs” in $/w for the
lifespan costs of PV and CSP facilities. Since the PV Panel is rather maintenance free,
outside of cleaning, what would the yearly costs be? As well as the 20 year costs? The
question is after 20 years, how much will a PV Plant cost and how much will a CSP plant
cost?
- Another issue is their pollution levels. Due to the complex system for CSP, how much
more pollution will be created from lifetime?
214

- The idea of reversing the Solar Two recycling idea was brought up by Murray Milne during
the final presentation of this thesis. Instead of moving Solar Two’s heliostat system to
Catalina, what is the feasibility of replacing Solar Two’s receiver and engineering systems?
Since the project was built as a test subject, the engineering is not made to be a “work
horse”. Can the engineering be replaced to turn it into a “work horse”?
- The idea of working with a large company to install PV on USC was brought up by Marc
Schiler. Since the rate structures change in 2008, can USC propose to install a PV system
on its roof to a company like Chevron? If Chevron was interested in installing a 1 mW array
onto LACCD buildings, could USC make a similar proposal?

215

Bibliography
Acciona. 2006. ACCIONA invests 220 million euros in a solar thermal electric power plant in
Nevada (USA). www.acciona.es. [Online] 02 13, 2006. [Cited: 03 13, 2008.]
http://www.acciona.es/default.asp?x=0002060101&z=000105&item=152&bus=1.
—. 2008. ACCIONA’s Nevada Solar One™ — Demonstrating the Commercial
Competitiveness of Solar Energy. www.nevadasolarone.net. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 13,
2008.] http://www.nevadasolarone.net/the-plant.
AEP, American Electric Power. 2007. American Electric Power. www.aep.com. [Online] 10
18, 2007. [Cited: 10 18, 2007.] www.aep.com.
ARB, Air Resources Board. 2008. Background Material; California's Air Quality History Key
Events. www.arb.ca.gov. [Online] 01 22, 2008. [Cited: 02 04, 08.]
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm.
Baltimore, Chris. 2008. U.S. to propose CO2 rules this spring: EPA head. [Online] Reuters,
03 28, 2008. [Cited: 03 28, 2008.]
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWBT00865620080327.
BNSF, Railway. 2008. BNSF Division Maps. bnsf.com. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 24, 2008.]
http://bnsf.com/tools/reference/division_maps/?menu=5&submenu=0.
Bureau, U.S. Census. 2008. State & County QuickFacts: Los Angeles County. U.S. Census
Bureau. [Online] 01 02, 2008. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.]
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html.
California Electricity Crisis. Joskow, Paul L. 2001. s.l. : Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
2001, Vols. 17, No. 3, Autumn, pp.365-388.
Carl Blumstein, L.S. Friedman, and R.J. Green. 2002. The History of Electricity
Restructuring in California. Berkeley, CA : UC Berkeley, CSEM & UCEI, Center for the Study
of Energy Markets & University of California Energy Institute, 2002. CSEM WP 103.
Carlson, Scott. 2008. Off Grid Battery-based Solar Electrical Installations.
www.carlsonsolar.com. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.]
http://www.carlsonsolar.com/batterybased.htm.
Catalina, Beach Weather. 2008. Catalina Beach Weather. www.catalinabeachweather.com.
[Online] Viper Logic Corp, 2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.]
http://www.catalinabeachweather.com/weather/statistics.aspx.
Catalina, Island Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Bureau. 2006. Visitor Services and
Community Info. www.catalinachamber.com. [Online] Catalina Island Chamber of
Commerce & Visitor Bureau, 2006. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.]
http://www.catalinachamber.com/visitor/about.asp.
Catalina_Realtors. 2008. Catalina Realtors. http://www.catalinarealtors.com/. [Online]
Meyer's Internet, 2008. [Cited: 12 02, 2007.] http://www.catalinarealtors.com/.
CCC, California Coastal Commission. 2004. Seawater Desalination and the California
Coastal Act. s.l. : CCC, California Coastal Commission, 2004.
216

—. 1993. Seawater Desalination in California, CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL DESALINATION
PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA. www.coastal.ca.gov. [Online] 1993. [Cited: 03 20, 2008.]
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap2.html.
CEC, California Energy Comission. 2008. 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report.
http://www.energy.ca.gov. [Online] 02 20, 2008. [Cited: 02 29, 2008.]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/index.html.
—. 2007. History of the CEC. Sacramento : (CEC), California Energy Comission, 2007.
CEC-999-2007-010.pdf. CEC-999-2007-010.
—. 1997. Strategic Plan. Sacramento : (CEC), California Energy Comission, 1997.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/strategicplan/STRAPLA.PDF.
CEC, California Energy Commission. 2000. California Energy Demand 2000 - 2010.
Sacramento : CEC, California Energy Commission, 2000. P200-00-002, Docket #99-CEO-1.
—. 2006. California Energy Zones: California Building Climate Zone Map.
www.energy.ca.gov. [Online] 05 18, 2006. [Cited: 03 24, 2008.]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/climate_zone_map.html.
CheatNeutral. 2008. CheatNeutral. http://cheatneutral.com/. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 17,
2008.] http://cheatneutral.com/.
Chen, Allan. 2006. Solar Power: A Path to Lower Costs in California. Science @ Berkeley
Lab. [Online] 01 30, 2006. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.] http://www.lbl.gov/Science-
Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jan/07-photovoltaics.html.
City-data.com. 2008. Avalon, Caliornia (CA) Detailed Profile. www.city-data.com. [Online]
2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.] http://www.city-data.com/city/Avalon-California.html.
CNN, 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. 2008. CNN -
Election Issues. www.CNN.com. [Online] 01 26, 2008. [Cited: 01 26, 2008.]
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.abortion.html.
Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2002. The Effect of the Bankruptcy of Enron.
Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. Serial No. 107-82.
Conservancy, Catalina Island. 2008. Catalina Island Conservancy.
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org/. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.]
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org/.
CONSOL. 2007. CONSOL ENERGY. http://www.consolenergy.com/. [Online] 10 18, 2007.
[Cited: 10 18, 2007.] http://www.consolenergy.com/.
Corum, Lyn. 2008. Solar is now Big Business. http://www.distributedenergy.com. [Online]
02 2008. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.] http://www.distributedenergy.com/de_0801_solar.html.
CPUC, California Public Utilities Commission. 1993. California’s Electric Services
Industry: Perspectives on the Past, Strategies for the Future, Division of Strategic Planning,
California Public Utilities Commission (known as "The Yellow Book"). s.l. : CPUC, California
Public Utilities Commission, 1993. 3822.pdf.
217

—. 2007. CPUC History & Structure. www.cpuc.ca. [Online] 10 19, 2007. [Cited: 01 26,
2008.] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/aboutus/puhistory.htm.
—. 1992. Decision D-92-09-088. Sacramento : CPUC, California Public Utilities Commission,
1992.
DESWARE, Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources. 2008. ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS OF DESALINATION PROCESSES . www.desware.net. [Online] 2008.
[Cited: 03 21, 2008.] http://www.desware.net/desa4.aspx.
DICUM, GREGORY. 2007. Plugged into the Sun. NY Times. [Online] 01 04, 2007. [Cited: 03
07, 2008.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/garden/04solar.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=fb9b
acabf5d55868&ex=1325566800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
DOE & EERE, Department of Energy & Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
2006. Building Energy Software Tools Directory: HEED. www.eere.energy.gov. [Online] 10
19, 2006. [Cited: 03 24, 2008.]
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=382/pagename=alpha
_list.
—. 2005. Solar Energy Technologies Program: Technoigies - Silicon.
www1.eere.energy.gov. [Online] 12 23, 2005. [Cited: 03 29, 2008.]
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html.
DOE & EIA, U.S. Department of Energy & Energy Information Administration. 1993.
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935:1925-1992. Washington, DC 20585 : DOE &
EIA, U.S. Department of Energy & Energy Information Administration, 1993.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/electricity/0563.pdf.
—. 2005. Subsequent Events - California's Energy Crisis. www.eia.doe.gov. [Online] 06 08,
2005. [Cited: 02 06, 2008.]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/california/subsequentevents.html.
—. 2006. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2006 Flash Estimate. s.l. :
DOE & EIA, U.S. Department of Energy & Energy Information Administration, 2006.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf.
DOE & EPA, U.S. Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.
Washington DC 20585, 20460 : Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html.
DOE & EPA, U.S. Department of Energy and Renewable Energy & U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 2008. Gas Milage of 1994 Honda Civic. www.fueleconomy.gov.
[Online] 01 26, 2008. [Cited: 01 26, 2008.]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/10745.shtml.
DOE & NETL's OSPA, U.S. Department of Energy & National Energy Technology Lab's
Office of Systems, Analysis, and Planning. 2007. Tracking New Coal Fired Power Plants.
s.l. : DOE & NETL's OSPA, U.S. Department of Energy & National Energy Technology Lab's
Office of Systems, Analysis, and Planning, 2007.
218

DOE Sunlab, Department of Energy & Sun Lab, Sandia National Labratory. 2008. Major
CSP Projects: Solar Tres. www.energylan.sandia.gov. [Online] DOE Sunlab, Department of
Energy & Sun Lab, Sandia National Labratory, 2008. [Cited: 03 15, 2008.]
http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/Snapshot/solartres.htm.
—. 2000. Solar Two Demonstrates Clean Power for the Future. Washington, DC : Sandia
National Labratory, 2000. sand2000-0613.
—. 1998. SunLab Snapshot: Solar Two. Washington, DC : DOE Sunlab, Department of
Energy & Sun Lab, Sandia National Labratory, 1998. DOE/GO-10098-562.
DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. On the Road to Energy Security; Implementing a
Comprehensive Energy Strategy: A Status Report. Washington, DC : Department of Energy,
2006. http://www.energy.gov/media/FINAL_8-14_DOE_booklet_copy_sep.pdf.
Doyle, Alister & Moskwa, Wojciech. 2008. Nxt President Better than Bush on Climate:
Barroso. www.reuters.com. [Online] reuters, 02 25, 2008. [Cited: 02 25, 2008.]
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2531525120080225.
DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. 2007. California
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. www.dsireusa.org. [Online] 06 04, 2007. [Cited:
03 04, 2008.]
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA13R&state=CA&
CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=1.
—. 07. DSIRE: Summary Maps. www.dsireusa.org. [Online] 12 01, 07. [Cited: 02 29, 2008.]
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/SummaryMaps/Rebate_Map.ppt.
EC5th. 2006. 10 MW Solar Thermal Power Plant for Southern Spain. s.l. : European
Community 5th Framework Programme, 2006. NNE5-1999-356.
eCatalina. 2008. Catalina Island Average Temperatures and Rainfall. www.ecatalina.com.
[Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.] http://www.ecatalina.com/weather.cfm.
EERE, EERE & Office of Utility Technologies. 1997. Renewable Energy Technology
Characterizations. Palo Alto : DOE EERE, Department of Energy & EERE, 1997. TR-
109496.
EnergyPlus. 2007. EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software: Weather Data. EnergyPlus.
[Online] 11 26, 2007. [Cited: 10 15, 2007.]
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data.cfm.
ENS, Environment News Service. 2007. First EU Commercial Concentrating Solar Power
Tower Opens in Spain. ENS Environment News Service. [Online] 03 30, 2007. [Cited: 03 11,
2008.] http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30-02.asp.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. History of the Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov.
[Online] 01 30, 2008. [Cited: 02 10, 2008.] http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa_history.html.
EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. How does electricity affect the
Environment. www.epa.gov. [Online] 12 28, 2007. [Cited: 01 26, 2008.]
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/index.html.
219

EU, European Union. 2007. CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER - FROM RESEARCH TO
IMPLEMENTATION. s.l. : European Communities, 2007. ISBN 978-92-79-05355-9.
FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006. Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Washington, DC 20426 : Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 2006.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/epact-fact-sheet.pdf.
Fritz, Steven G. 2004. Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel in an EMD GP38-2 Locomotive.
Golden : NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2004. NREL/SR-510-33416.
GCEP, Stanford University Global Climate & Energy Project. 2006. An Assessment of
Solar Energy Conversion Technologies and Research Opportunities. s.l. : GCEP, Stanford
University Global Climate & Energy Project, 2006.
Go_Solar. 2005. Grid Tie Solar. http://www.solarexpert.com. [Online] Go Solar, 2005. [Cited:
03 05, 2008.] http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/solar-advantges.html.
GoogleEarth. 2008. GoogleEarth. s.l. : Google, 2008. earth.google.com.
GoSolarCalifornia. 2008. Cash Back for Solar on Your Home.
www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov. [Online] CEC, California Energy Comission, 2008. [Cited: 03
29, 2008.] http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/cash_back.html.
—. 2008. Cash Back for Solar on Your Non Profit Building. www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov.
[Online] CEC, California Eergy Comission, 2008. [Cited: 03 39, 2008.]
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/non-profit/cash_back_nonprofit.html.
GreenBuildingsLA, Jeff. 2008. Solar L.A. http://www.greenbuildingsla.com/. [Online] 02 01,
2008. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.] http://www.greenbuildingsla.com/.
Greenpeace. 2005. Concentrated Solar Power NOW! s.l. : Greenpeace, 2005.
Guggenheim, Davis. 2006. An Inconcenient Truth. 2006.
Hedrick, John. 2007. Summary of Locomotive Aftertreatment Applications. San Antonio :
Southwest Research Institute, 2007.
HEED, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design. 2007. HEED: Home Energy
Efficient Design. mackintosh.aud.ucla.edu. [Online] 07 25, 2007. [Cited: 03 24, 2008.]
http://mackintosh.aud.ucla.edu/heed/.
KHYC. 2008. KHYC Catalina Facility. www.khyc.org. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 20, 2008.]
http://www.khyc.org/facilities/catalina.htm.
Kim Hughes, Public Affairs at LADWP. 2007. Los Angeles : Greg Swanson, 10 01, 2007.
Kopinski, Don. 2004. Controlling Emissions from Locomotive and Marine Diesels.
Washington, DC : EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 2004.
Kyocera. 2008. KD210GX-LP Specifications. Fushimi-ku : Kyocera, 2008.
KyoceraSolar. 2007. Kyocera PV Calculator. www.kyocerasolar.com. [Online] 2007. [Cited:
03 19, 2008.] http://www.kyocerasolar.com/products/pv_calculator.html.
220

LA_Almanac. 2008. LA Almanac - Population Density. www.laalmanac.com. [Online] Given
Place Media, 2008. [Cited: 03 20, 2008.] http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po11.htm.
LADWP, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 2006. 2004-2005 Annual Report.
Los Angeles : LADWP, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2006.
—. 2007. 2006 Green Power Annual Report. Los Angeles : LADWP, Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, 2007.
Los Angeles Times, L.A. Land. 2007. Rents rising in large apt. complexes. L.A. Land: Los
Angeles Times. [Online] 10 08, 2007. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2007/10/rents-rising-in.html.
LS_Power. 2007. LS Power. www.lspower.com. [Online] 10 18, 2007. [Cited: 10 18, 2007.]
www.lspower.com.
Lucasfilm, LTD. 2008. Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Lucasfilm, LTD, San Francisco : 2008.
Mariyappan, Jason & Anderson, Dennis. 2001. Thematic Review of GEF-Financed Solar
Thermal Projects. London : Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London,
U.K, 2001.
Martín, José C. 2007. Solar Tres. Denver : SENER, NREL CSP Workshop, Gemasolar
2006, 2007.
McCullough, Robert. June 5, 2002. Congestion Manipulation in ISO California. Portland,
Oregon : McCullough Research Clients, June 5, 2002.
http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/19.pdf.
Nanopedia. 2008. Solar Energy for Power. nanopedia.case.edu. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03
13, 2008.] http://nanopedia.case.edu/NWPage.php?page=stu.miller.58.
Nellis AFB, Nellis Air Force Base. 2008. Nellis Air Force Base Solar Power System.
www.nellis.af.mil. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 13, 2008.]
http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/nellissolarpowersystem.asp.
NEPDG, National Energy Policy Development Group. 2001. National Energy Policy.
Washington, DC : United States Government, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf.
New_Rules_Project. 2007. Democratic Energy - May 2007. http://www.newrules.org.
[Online] 04 23, 2007. [Cited: 03 04, 2008.]
http://www.newrules.org/de/archives/2007_05.html.
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 200. National Weather
Service: El Toro MCAS climate. http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/. [Online] 200. [Cited: 03 29,
2008.] http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/climate/orange-eltoro.htm.
NorCal, Solar Association. 2006. Bay Area Solar Installs 2006. www.norcalsolar.org.
[Online] 2006. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.] http://www.norcalsolar.org/Municipal-Solar/Bay-Area-
Solar-Installs-2006.html#costperwatt.
221

NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2007. Learning About Renewabe Energy:
Photovoltaics. www.nrel.gov. [Online] NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 10 26,
2007. [Cited: 03 29, 2008.] http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_photovoltaics.html.
NSRD, National Solar Radiation Database. 2005. National Solar Radiation Database.
rredc.nrel.gov. [Online] 2005. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.]
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/list_by_USAFN.html.
Office of Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. 2007. Office of Governor of the State of
California. gov.ca.gov. [Online] GAAS:892:07, 11 08, 2007. [Cited: 02 04, 2008.]
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/print-version/press-release/8047/.
Office of Governor, Gray Davis. 2001. Executive Order D-22-01. Sacramento : Office of
Governor, Gray Davis, 2001.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/reports/2003/ExecOrders.pdf.
—. 2001. Governor Davis Sues U.S. EPA over Gasoline Additive 8/13/2001. www.arb.gov.
[Online] PR01:356, 08 13, 2001. [Cited: 01 26, 2008.]
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/oxy/wav/lawsuit.pdf.
Ortega, J. Ignacio & Burgaleta, J. Ignacio & Téllez, Félix M. 2007?. CENTRAL
RECEIVER SYSTEM (CRS) SOLAR POWER PLANT USING MOLTEN SALT AS HEAT
TRANSFER FLUID. Spain? : Sener Energy?, 2007?
Pacific_Institute. 2008. Bottled Water and Energy. www.pacinst.org. [Online] 2008. [Cited:
03 12, 2008.]
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_water_and_ene
rgy.html.
Peterson, Jonathan. 2004. Enron Tapes Hint Chiefs Knew About Power Ploys.
www.commondreams.org. [Online] 05 18, 2004. [Cited: 02 17, 2008.]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0518-05.htm.
PEW, Center on Global Climate Change. 2008. Coal and Climate Change Facts.
www.pewclimate.org. [Online] 02 07, 2008. [Cited: 02 07, 2008.]
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm.
Powerlight. 2007. Solar Panel Installation by Powerlight, "SunTile" panels installated by
PowerLight's Gary Neate & Kurt Johnson. www.flickr.com. [Online] 04 16, 2007. [Cited: 05
08, 2008.] http://www.flickr.com/photos/acore/461901157/.
Quaschning, Volker & Muriel, Manuel Blanco. 2001. Solar Power – Photovoltaics or Solar
Thermal Power Plants? Spain : DLR, Plataforma Solar de Almería, 2001.
Rio_Tinto. 2008. Rio Tinto Timeline. www.riotinto.com. [Online] Rio Tinto, 02 23, 2008.
[Cited: 02 23, 2008.] http://www.riotinto.com/whoweare/timeline.asp.
Romero, Manuel & Buck, Reiner & Pacheco, James E. 2002. An Update on Solar Central
Receiver Systems, Projects, and Technologies. s.l. : Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
2002.
222

Sargent & Lundy, LLC Consulting Group. 2003. Assessment of Parabolic Trough and
Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. Golden : National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003. DE-AC36-99-GO1033.
SCAQMD, South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. FINALDRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PEBBLY BEACH
GENERATING STATION SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) INSTALLATION
PROJECT. Los Angeles : So Cal Edison, 2003. SCH No. 2003031050.
SCE, Southern California Edison. 2007. Catalina Usage Statistics obtained through
Juliette Hart at USC. s.l. : SCE, Southern California Edison, 2007.
—. 2007. Power Content Label. Los Angeles : SCE, Southern California Edison, 2007.
Seale, Eric. 2003. Available types of solar cells -- materials and packaging.
www.solarbotics.net. [Online] 07 09, 2003. [Cited: 03 08, 2008.]
http://www.solarbotics.net/starting/200202_solar_cells/200202_solar_cell_types.html.
Sierra_Club. 2008. Dirty Coal Power. www.sierraclub.org. [Online] 01 26, 2008. [Cited: 01
26, 2008.] http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp.
SMGOV, City of Santa Monica. 2007. Green Energy Purchasing. www.smgov.net. [Online]
10 31, 2007. [Cited: 03 04, 2008.]
http://www.smgov.net/epd/residents/Energy/green_energy.htm.
SMUD, Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2007. 2006 Annual Report. Sacramento :
SMUD, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 2007.
—. 2007. 2007 STATUS REPORT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY AT SMUD. Sacramento :
SMUD, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 2007.
Solarbuzz. 2008. Economic Payback of Solar Energy Systems. www.solarbuzz.com.
[Online] 2008. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.] http://www.solarbuzz.com/Consumer/Payback.htm.
Solargenix. SOLARGENIX ENERGY video / photo gallery. www.solargenix.com. [Online]
[Cited: 03 13, 2008.] http://www.solargenix.com/photo_gallery.cfm?category_id=4.
Solarpaces. 2007. Nevada Solar One. www.solarpaces.com. [Online] 06 28, 2007. [Cited:
03 19, 2008.] http://www.solarpaces.org/Tasks/Task1/Nevada_Solar_One.HTM.
SolarPaces. 2007. Solar Tres. www.solarpaces.org. [Online] 07 15, 2007. [Cited: 03 12,
2008.] http://www.solarpaces.org/Tasks/Task1/Solar_Tres.htm.
SquareOne. 2008. WeatherTool. [weather data software] s.l. : SqureOne, 2008.
Stine, William B & Geyer, Michael. 2004. Power From the Sun. s.l. : powerfromthesun.net,
2004.
Sunpower. 2008. Sunpower Performance Monitor: Nellis Air Force Base PowerTracker.
www.mypowerlight.com. [Online] 03 13, 2008. [Cited: 03 13, 2008.]
http://mypowerlight.com/Commercial/kiosk.aspx?id=1dd14d57-7840-4b2d-af0a-
0fe0fdd5c872.
223

Swanson, Gregory. 2008. BEING GREEN AND THE COMMON CITIZEN DEVELOPING
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT THROUGH SOLAR
POWER AND EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN. Los Angeles : USC, University of Southern
California, 2008.
—. 2007. HEED simulations for 16 California Climate Zones. Los Angeles : s.n., 2007.
Swezey, Blair & Bird, Lori. 2001. Utility Green-Pricing Programs: What Defines Success?
Oak Ridge, Tn : DOE & NREL, Department of Energy & National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 2001. NREL/TP.620.29831.
Technews. 2007. Nevada Solar One. www.technologynewsdaily.com. [Online] 06 13, 2007.
[Cited: 03 13, 2008.] http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/7150.
Thalman, Jon Eric. 2001. Path 15 Upgrade, Phase 1: Comprehensive Progress Report.
s.l. : PG&E, Pacific Gas and Electric, 2001.
http://www.wapa.gov/sn/ops/transmission/path15/WECC/path15cpr.pdf.
U.S. CCTP, Climate Change Technology Program. 2005. Technology Options for the
Near and Long Term. www.climatetechnology.gov. [Online] 08 2005. [Cited: 03 08, 2008.]
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-132.pdf.
UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2008. Kyoto
Protocol. www.unfccc.int. [Online] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 02 25, 2008. [Cited: 02 25, 2008.]
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2878.php.
Unirac. 2006. Unirac Solarmount. Albuquerque : Unirac, Inc, 2006. Pub 060901-1ds.
US_Census. 2000. 2000 Census Data for tracts 5990, 5991. factfinder.census.gov. [Online]
US Census Bureau, 2000. [Cited: 12 2, 2008.] factfinder.census.gov.
USC_Wrigley. 2008. USC Wrigley Institute. http://wrigley.usc.edu/. [Online] 2008. [Cited: 03
20, 2008.] http://wrigley.usc.edu/.
Volker. 2003. Solar Thermal Power Plants. www.volker-quaschning.de. [Online] Renewable
Energy World, 06 2003. [Cited: 03 11, 2008.] http://www.volker-
quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals2/index_e.html.
Westside_Rentals. 2007. os Angeles Apartments and Rentals Rent Survey: San Fernando
Valley - Central Area May 2007. Westside Rentals. [Online] 2007. [Cited: 03 05, 2008.]
http://www.westsiderentals.com/rentsurvey.cfm?survey=27_070605.
Wikepedia. 2008. Czochralski process. en.wikipedia.org. [Online] 03 07, 2008. [Cited: 03
08, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czochralski_process.
—. 2008. Solar cell. en.wikipedia.org. [Online] 03 07, 2008. [Cited: 03 07, 2008.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell.
224

WRCC. 2008. Catalina Island Weather Stations. www.wrcc.dri.edu. [Online] Western
Regional Climate Center, 2008. [Cited: 03 21, 2008.] http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/catalina/.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The ability for the common citizen to invest into renewable resources is limited in today 's market. "Being Green" is on everyone s mind in the United States, but only those who have money can afford to be " green ". In Los Angeles, 51% rent. Even if a consumer had the money, they couldn' t install solar panels because they don t own their home. The thesis concept is to offer new sources of "green" investment that apply to broader demographics. The new investment option proposed is to offer PV solar panels which are installed at an isolated, centralized facility, as opposed to being installed on local rooftops. This concept achieves higher electricity generation for the same price. Furthermore, concentrated solar power facilities offer even higher generation for half the cost of these PV facilities. Finally, the study reviews how upgrading building efficiencies through construction can, in some cases, be cheaper than both concepts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Landscape and building solar loads: development of a computer-based tool to aid in the design of landscape to reduce solar gain and energy consumption in low-rise residential buildings

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

Asset Metadata

Creator Swanson, Gregory (author)

Core Title Being green and the common citizen: developing alternative methods of renewable energy investment through solar power and efficient building design

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Building Science

Degree Program Building Science

Publication Date 04/28/2008

Defense Date 05/01/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Catalina Island,concentrated solar power,Green,LADWP,Los Angeles,OAI-PMH Harvest,PV,renewable,SCE,solar,solar farm

Place Name islands: Catalina Island (geographic subject), Los Angeles County (city or populated place), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Spiegelhalter, Thomas (committee chair), Milne, Murray (committee member), Schiler, Marc (committee member)

Creator Email greg.swanson@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1205

Unique identifier UC1435767

Identifier etd-Swanson-20080428 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-66586 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1205 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Swanson-20080428.pdf

Dmrecord 66586

Document Type Thesis

Rights Swanson, Gregory

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu