Sustainable Energy at PG&E

Hal LaFlash
Director
Emerging Clean Technologies

September 23, 2010

 Electric Generation Portfolio Mix - Energy

Clean Today Even Cleaner Tomorrow

Bioenergy 4% Small Hydro
Geothermal 4% <1%
Wind 3%
Small Hydro 3%
Other Unspecified Eligible Solar <1%
1% (market purchases) Renewables Geothermal
Coal 18%
1% 15% Solar Thermal
26%
Large Hydro
13%

Wind
29%
Natural Gas Solar PV
36% Nuclear 20%
20%

7%
Bioenergy

2009 Actual Deliveries 8,550 MW of New Renewables

(mix by % energy as of 8/31/10) 1
 Renewable Portfolio Standards
www.dsireusa.org / August 2010
VT: (1) RE meets any increase ME: 30% x 2000
WA: 15% x 2020* New RE: 10% x 2017
MN: 25% x 2025 in retail sales x 2012;
MT: 15% x 2015 (Xcel: 30% x 2020) (2) 20% RE & CHP x 2017 NH: 23.8% x 2025
OR: 25% x 2025 (large utilities)* ND: 10% x 2015 MI: 10% + 1,100 MW MA: 22.1% x 2020
x 2015* New RE: 15% x 2020
5% - 10% x 2025 (smaller utilities)
(+1% annually thereafter)
SD: 10% x 2015 WI: Varies by utility;
NY: 29% x 2015 RI: 16% x 2020
10% x 2015 statewide
NV: 25% x 2025* CT: 23% x 2020
IA: 105 MW OH: 25% x 2025†
CO: 30% by 2020 (IOUs)
PA: ~18% x 2021†
10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*
IL: 25% x 2025 WV: 25% x 2025*† NJ: 22.5% x 2021
CA: 33% x 2020 UT: 20% by 2025* KS: 20% x 2020 VA: 15% x 2025* MD: 20% x 2022
MO: 15% x 2021 DE: 25% x 2026*
AZ: 15% x 2025
OK: 15% x 2015 NC: 12.5% x 2021 (IOUs) DC DC: 20% x 2020
10% x 2018 (co-ops & munis)
NM: 20% x 2020 (IOUs)
10% x 2020 (co-ops)

TX: 5,880 MW x 2015

HI: 40% x 2030

State renewable portfolio standard Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement 29 states +

State renewable portfolio goal DC have an RPS
Solar water heating eligible *† Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables
Includes non-renewable alternative resources (7
(7 states
states have
have goals)
goals)
 Renewable Energy Technologies
Traditional

Biomass Small Hydro Geothermal Wind

Emerging

Concentrating Tracking Concentrating BioGas

Solar Thermal Photovoltaic Photovoltaic 3
 PG&E’s Sustainable Energy Journey

Adopted environmental policy

Construction of Published first annual Supported Dow Jones Newsweek #1

AB 32 Sustainability greenest utility
last geothermal environmental report
power plant Index ranking
Adopted climate
Published first
change policy Top 10 Carbon
First Construction of Corporate
Responsibility Disclosure
hydro first geothermal Joined Ceres
Report Project
plant power plant

1890’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Wind and solar

research Began Solar McKinsey Opposed
Schools Program study sponsor Prop. 23
Certify entity- U.S. Senate Corporate
Joined Clean wide CO2 climate change Resp. and
Energy Group Charter Member emissions testimony (2x) Sustain.
of California Report
Climate Action Use “Carbon Clinton Initiative
Registry Adder” in Long- 2,000 MW Solar
Term Plan Commitment
Join Carbon
Disclosure
Project
4
 Supporting the Clean Energy Economy
Unique role in finding technology solutions to global warming
while meeting our customers’ goals of reduced carbon footprints
Helping develop a sustainable energy future by supporting a new
clean energy industry
3,000+ MW of Power Purchase Agreements with 13 Clean Tech
Start-ups

5
Participation in RPS Solicitations is Accelerating
• Solar energy saw a dramatic increase in participation from
developers in the 2007-2009 RPS solicitations
• Wind continues to be large contributor to RPS offers

Number of Bids by Renewable Source in IOU Solicitations

6
Source: California Public Utilities Commission, 1st Quarter 2010
 Future 246-MW Manzana Wind Farm
Manzana site in Tehachapi
Wind Resource Area

Current Tehachapi Wind

Resource Area Developments 7
 Renewable Energy Percentages

Source: California Public Utilities Commission, 2nd Quarter 2010 8

Levelized Cost of Generation by Technology

9
 Distributed vs. Utility Scale Solar;
PV vs Solar Thermal

Distributed PV Utility Scale PV Utility Scale Solar Thermal

Pros: Pros: Pros:

• Speed to market • Economies of scale • Economies of scale
• Not transmission • Modular • Efficiencies
dependent • Minimal water • Compatible with
• Not dependent on water emerging storage
technologies
Cons: Cons: Cons:
• Higher deployment costs • Land requirements • Transmission
• Slower scale penetration • Not for all locations dependent
• Land & water
requirements
• Not for all locations 10
 PG&E’s New “Hybrid” PV Program

• 5-Year, 500-MW Program starting in late 2010/early 2011

• 1 to 20 MW photovoltaic generation installations in northern and
central California
– Up to 50 MW per year utility-owned generation
– Up to 50 MW per year of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
with renewable resource developers
• Projects developed and owned by PG&E would be built on land
near its substations to minimize the cost and delays of
interconnecting to the power grid
• The terms of the PPAs will be pre-approved by the CPUC, avoiding
the need for negotiations and legal fees. Prices would be based
on a competitive solicitation.
• Projects will have 18 months to go into operation.

11
PV Plants Near Substations

12
 Distributed Solar Generation Growing Rapidly

More than 43,000 PG&E customers have solar generation onsite.

~40% of US solar PV interconnections are in PG&E’s service territory

13