ST CEO Rogoff Incompetent COVID-19 Response

The previous Sept. 30th post opined ST CEO Rogoff had failed to provide his 2021 budget detailing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  While Sound transit had detailed how service on all the transit modes will be adjusted it had not provided any information about the pandemic's effect on finances or on system expansion.

That was provided in an October 14th presentation to the Sound Transit Board Finance and Audit Committee, "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2021 Budget".  It can best be described as an "overview" with a series of charts showing the pandemic impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2021 Budget".

The Long Range Financial Plan provides a reasonable explanation of the problem.  The loss in available resources and the increase in expenditures along with the reduction in allowable debt will result in $2.7B unfunded expenditures by 2041.  That even a "moderate recession" required a "Realignment" consisting of a 4-year delay for some projects to avoid the projected need for debt exceeding the available debt capacity. A more "severe recession" could make even a 5-year delay unaffordable.

The 4-year delay also reduced Sound Transit debt at the end in 2041 from $25B to $20B.  That's still more than the $17B projected prior to the pandemic (It's never been clear how Sound Transit intends to pay off either level once ST3 funding ends)

Rofoff incompetence is exemplified by the plan's Proposed 2021 Budget.  His "Major cost-saving initiatives in 2020-2021", eliminating 77 vacant positions is offset by his adding 42 positions.  He claims they're needed for system expansion while delaying the expansions for 4 years.  His 2021 revenue projection fare revenues will increase 64% with pandemic seems "optimistic".  The major "other" revenue was listed as $700M from TIFIA.

TIFIA apparently stands for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.  TIFIA called the loan, "The largest single TIFIA loan to a transit agency in the country and the second largest TIFIA loan overall in the 25-year history of the program".  Yet he neglects to include the apparent added $700M debt in the charts showing pandemic effects on debt.

Rogoff demonstrates further incompetence with how he to uses the funds in response to pandemic.  Rather than reducing 2021 "System Expansion" funding he increases it from $2.242B to $2.306B, funding his decision, "Current construction continues".

He refuses to recognize light rail extensions beyond Northgate or Angel Lake will do nothing to increase light rail capacity through DSTT or reduce I-5 congestion. That any riders added will reduce access to light rail for current riders.

Those extensions are the ones he should at least delay if not cancel.  Rather than delaying the West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link for 4 years he should expedite their far less expensive construction, reducing the pandemic effect on debt.  Thousands of additional Seattle commuters would benefit instead of existing Central Link riders losing access because of Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions riders. 

Rogoff waits until page 41 of the 43 pages to mention his approach to increasing tax revenue with pandemic with following agenda:

11/5-Public Hearing--budget and property taxes 

11/5-Executive Committee--budget overview and property tax levy

11/19-Board Meeting--request for approval of a property tax levy

The  board had previously increased property taxes by $125.00 on a $500,000 home in response to I-976 passage.  Since I-976 was invalidated they could have ended that increase.  Instead it's not clear how much additional he intends to ask for, how this affects the debt problem, or what  limits the board authority to raise them. 

The bottom line is a competent transit CEO would have used the loss in funds as a reason to expedite the less expensive West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link.  Thousands of Seattle residents would have benefitted and the debt at the end in 2041 would be far less.

CEO Rogoff didn't and isn't.

 

The Reality of Battery Powered Cars

The previous post detailed how the Benton County Public Utility Department had concluded the intermittent nature of wind power precluded it being a reliable source of power.  This post details the need to charge most EV batteries overnight means very little power will come from solar panels.  That CO2 emissions from natural gas power plants to charge EV batteries offsets the benefits of reduced CO2 with EVs. That CO2 emissions from coal power plants to power EV batteries will  exceed the CO2 reduction with EVs.

Governor Newsom recently announced California will prohibit the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-powered cars in 15 years.  His rationale  presumably being electric vehicle efficiency, 70%,  is 3.2 times the 22% efficiency for gasoline vehicles.

 EV  mileage commonly refers to how many miles they'll get from the 33.7 kW of electrical power in a gallon of gasoline.  At 65 mph an EV typically takes .375 kWh per mile.  Thus the EV effective miles per gallon is ~90 empg, a significant improvement over the 28 mpg  for gasoline powered vehicles.

The question becomes where do they get the .375 kWh supplied to the EV.  A hybrid car gets the power from its gasoline engine.  The efficiency of using electric power to drive the wheels rather than the engine typically increases mileage to ~ 55 mpg.  However the power for a "plug-in" EV has to come from other sources.  

The problem is, even in California, the vast majority of EV batteries will be charged over night when solar power is no longer generated.  Unless EV owners have some way of storing the electricity during the day, the electricity used will likely come from fossil fuel powered generators.  Clearly EV car use will not be CO2 free.

A gas turbine converts about 38% of its energy into electrical power.  That loss along with loss during transmission results in it taking 2.8776 kWh of energy at the source to supply a kW to the car, reducing EV mileage to 31.2 empg.   A/C and heat under "ideal driving conditions" at 65 mph would reportedly drop EV empg ~10% on a new car and 18% on a 4.5 year old battery to 27.5 empg.  More severe conditions could drop empg by 25% on a new car and 30% on a 4.5-yer old car reducing mileage to 21.8 empg.  By comparison the 3% loss in a gasoline powered car from A/C and heat is presumable reflected in the 28 mpg rating.  Clearly there is very little mileage gain from EV power.

An EV battery currently costs about $100 for every kWh stored.  At .375 kWh per mile, an EV would require a battery costing $10,000 to travel 250 miles between charges.  Charging the battery coud take several hours.  The cost associated with storing gasoline in either a conventional or hybrid is minimal as is the time to "recharge"it.  It's a question of whether the cost of adding electric motors to drive the wheel rather than the engine outweighs the fuel savings.

The EV's principle benefit is their reduction in CO2 emissions.  Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2, so a car averaging 28 mpg will emit .71 lbs of CO2 a mile.  Natural gas combustion produces 117 lbs of CO2 per million BTU or 289.3 kW or .40 lbs per kW   Assuming .375 kW per mile at the meter and 1.08 kW at the source,  .43 lbs of CO2 will be emitted at the power station per EV mile, 40% less than a gasoline powered car.  (However a hybrid vehicle getting 55 miles from 20 lbs of CO2 would emit only .36 lbs of CO2 a mile.)

Again, A/C, heat, normal driving conditions, and age would increase  EV power generated CO2 emissions .  Their effects on gasoline engine and hybrid vehicles are presumably reflected in their 28 mpg and 55 mpg ratings.

Meanwhile in states using coal, 228 lbs of CO2 are emitted to generate the 289.3kW.  That equates to .79 lbs of CO2 per kW.  Again assuming the .375 kW per mile at the meter and the1.08 kW at the source, .85 lbs of CO2 will be emitted to power the  EV a mile, 20% more than a gasoline powered car averaging 28 mpg.  (Again real life operation would increase that penalty) 

That should give pause to those advocating EVs.

Washington State blows away wind fantasies

(The following, from the "Waat's Up With That" website, is another example of the futility of attempts to end the state's fossil fuel power sources)

Ronald Stein October 12th 2020

The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District (BPUD) has documented their actual battleground experiences  with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers.  Their message is "no more wind"

The Washington state utility 16-page report titled "Wind Power and Clean Energy Policy Perspective" of July 14, 2020 provides a devastating counter attack to the wind lobbyists that they question the efficacy of wind farms for power generation and resulted in the utility's commissioners saying they "do not support further wind power development in the Northwest".

Kudos to this Washington state public utility for speaking up after seeing the costs and dangers of California's experience with an over reliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar.  In a statement and report, the utility said overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts.

They go on to say the development of wind farms may be "politically fashionable" and appeal to many in the general public, but science and economics show that attempting to power modern civilization with intermittent electricity from wind and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost.

The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia, as power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe.  Today, German households pay almost 50% more for electricity than they did in 2006.  Shockingly, America, from California to New York, continues to take giant steps toward following Germany's failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere.

Rebutting 60 Minute California Burning Segment

 (The following is from the "Waat's Up With That" website)

By James Taylor from Climaterealism.com

Prominent scientist and climate activist Michael Mann appealed to an asserted scientific consensus to chastise President Donald Trump on CBS's 60 Minutes program last night.  Ironically Mann himself ignored clear scientific consensus in order to promote his own out-of-the mainstream climate change theories.

While interviewing Mann, CBS"s Scott Pelley said, "There have always been fires in the West.  There have always been hurricanes in the East.  How do we know that climate change is involved in this?' Pelley followed up with, "The president says about climate change, 'Science doesn't know'".

Replied Mann,  "The president doesn't know, and he should know better.  He should know that the world's leading scientific organizations, our own U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and national academies of every major industrial nation, every scientific society in the United States that's weighed in on the matter.  This is a scientific consensus.  There's about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity"

Mann's description of the conclusions of the "scientific consensus " however, is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report.

As documented in "Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes", the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC) expresses "low confidence" in any connection between climate change and changes in hurricane activity.

Similarly, as documented in "Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires," U.S. wildfires are much less frequent and severe  than they were in the first half of the 20th century -- 100 years of global warming ago.  Moreover the IPCC reports a decrease in drought conditions- which is primary climate factor regarding wildfires- in the global region including the U.S. West.  Moreover, the IPCC finds no evidence of an increase in drought globally, either.

Ultimately, data, evidence, and scientific facts are far more indicative of scientific truth that a real or imagined consensus of scientist. Yet, to the extent Michael Mann wishes to invoke consensus as a scientific argument, the clear consensus of scientists is that Mann is promoting extreme climate theories that have no basis in reality

Ending PSE Coal-fired Power Plant Questions

 (I submitted the following to UTC)

PSE Ending Coal Power Questions

My September 28th Puget Sound Energy bill included a "Notice of Requested Sale, PSE Coal-Fired Power Plant" detailing its intent to respond to the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act requiring PSE no longer supply its customers with power from coal-fired generation by January 1, 2026.

    "PSE filed a request with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to sell "all of its interests in coal-fired steam plant" in southern Montana by the end of 2020 to Northwestern Energy.  PSE also requested the UTC approve its proposed accounting treatment for the transaction that "addresses how decommissioning  and remediation costs as well as unrecovered plant, will be included in customer rates"

It's not clear what the "costs" will be for customers.  A Wikipedia Puget Sound Energy description included the following regarding their power sources.

    "Coal accounted for 36% of PSE's electricity fuel mix in 2018.  PSE's partial ownership of Eastern Montana's Colstrip Generation Station represents the single largest  power-generating facility PSE owns, approximately 700 MW of generating capacity.  Hydroelectricity 31%, gas power 22%, and wind 10%, provided the remainder."

The PSE "Notice" included their agreement to purchase power from Northwestern Energy through December 31, 2025 to replace some of the power supply that will be lost in the sale.  The only reliable source in 2026 will likely be additional natural gas powered plants, of limited benefit from reduced CO2 emissions.  The costs will be "substantial" and the benefits of replacing CO2 will be offset by the global warming from increased H2O.

PSE needs to provide anticipated consumer rates and their post coal-fired power plant energy sources to meet Washington Clean energy Transformation Act requirements in 2026.