This was the case until recently; the payments that existing plants were able to secure within California’s Resource Adequacy market were relatively modest. However, an unanticipated regulatory change determining how clean energy is allowed to participate in the Resource Adequacy market increased the payments existing power plants are able to earn. According to the California Community Choice Association, Resource Adequacy effectively doubled between 2018 and 2019. This has boosted the value of California’s existing plants and renewed interest in sales and financing of these assets, such as Calpine’s $1.1 billion financing of its Northern California geothermal assets.
At the heart of the doubling in price is the often heard refrain that solar power plants cannot generate electricity when the sun does not shine, nor can wind power plants generate when the wind does not blow. Because solar and wind power plants cannot be counted on to provide maximum output in any given hour, electric system planners and regulators typically discount the amount of output that a wind or solar power plant that can effective be relied on compared with the power plant’s theoretical maximum output.
Most system operators have traditionally relied on the past performance of a power plant during peak system conditions as a means of calculating a plant’s value. With growing levels of solar and wind generation on the system, California decided that the traditional methodology of past performance may not be the best indicator of future performance. In 2018, California regulators implemented new rules to determine what percentage of a solar and wind generator’s maximum output could reliably be counted on during times of peak energy demand based on probabilistic modeling.
This new methodology, known as the Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of solar and wind, nearly cut in half the amount of solar output that can count towards California’s Resource Adequacy market with no actual change in California’s physical infrastructure. The resulting doubling of Resource Adequacy pricing was based on simple supply-and-demand dynamics, as the regulatory removal of this capacity from the market created upward pressure on pricing to benefit existing power plants.
The ripples of this speed bump towards 100% clean energy were felt not just in pricing. The California Independent System Operator, responsible for reliability, became concerned that the state would be short on the number of power plants needed to maintain a reliable system as early as 2021. Due to the lead time necessary to build a new power plant, the California Public Utility Commission recommend that the State Water Resources Control Board extend the deadline by three years for the scheduled retirement of several older inefficient power plants that use marine water in an environmentally damaging manner to cool steam generated at the plants, as a way to temporarily provide a backstop to maintain a reliable electric system. As California works to identify the root cause of the rolling blackouts experienced this August, certainly additional recommendation are likely to be proposed.
While there is much discussion on the theoretical possibility of transitioning to a 100% clean energy power grid, owners of power plants should recognize this does not mean the value of traditional power plants will decline in lockstep with tightening clean energy targets. California’s experience demonstrates that market rules and regulations will need to continue evolving to capture the practical realties of how to reliably and cost effectively operate a clean energy power grid. These changes to market rules create opportunities for thoughtful investors able to capitalize on unexpected turns in the market, including those who own traditional carbon-producing power plants. Such opportunities will not be limited to California, but also other states with aggressive clean energy aspirations.