The impact of new clean energy projects on carbon displacement varies significantly by location – pv magazine USA

June 24, 2024 Michael Puttre

A recent report by Tennessee-based renewable energy consultancy Clearloop noted that since 2014, private companies have contracted 71 GW of new renewable capacity in the U.S., enough to power nearly 15 million homes. However, the distribution of solar and wind energy projects tends to be regionally clustered, and not only because of the availability of wind and solar energy resources. State and utility policies on renewable energy play a huge role in locating new projects.

Clearloop, a subsidiary of solar energy manufacturer Silicon Ranch, has partnered with nonprofit emissions data analytics firm WattTime to explore how renewable energy projects – and solar energy in particular – can be cited for better results environmental and even social. The resulting white paper, Curing Carbon Blindness, highlights the important role of private sector action in the development of renewable energy in the U.S., while concluding that such action can be better targeted at achieving decarbonization goals.

The report suggests that by incorporating the ‘carbon neutrality’ principle, companies looking to purchase renewable energy credits (RECs) or offset their carbon footprint should seek to contract with solar and wind projects in regions with the highest percentages of fossil fuel generation.

Under the current structure, all RECs are essentially equal, meaning a recipient in one part of the country can buy a REC from a project anywhere else. There are differences in regional markets like ERCOT, but that’s generally how it works. Laura Zapata, co-founder and CEO of Clearloop and one of the authors of the carbon blindness report, stated that not all MWh of clean energy are created equal in terms of environmental impact.

“We still get over 60% of our electricity in this country from fossil fuels,” Zapata said pv USA magazine. “That’s why our goal is to build more solar projects in the communities with the highest carbon emissions, which are often also the most neglected and disadvantaged communities.”

Unlike most countries, the United States does not have a single national power grid. It is more like a continent with many regional networks with very different emissions characteristics. Some regions, such as California, have grids with a heavy share of renewable energy, while others, such as those in southern Appalachia, generate energy largely from fossil fuels.

According to a report by Clearloop, flipping a light switch in Eastern Kentucky will produce 54% more carbon dioxide emissions than turning on the corresponding light in Los Angeles. The same data shows that a new solar plant located in eastern Kentucky will reduce emissions 62% more than the same plant in Los Angeles.

By combining historical irradiance data with WattTime’s marginal emissions data, Clearloop claims it can model not only the amount of electricity a solar project is expected to contribute to the grid, but also the marginal carbon intensity of the power generation sources it moves into it. region at certain times.

Zapata argues that the marginal difference in emissions created when solar generation displaces fossil fuel generation should be a key factor in citing projects. Using WattTime’s emissions analysis methodology, Clearloop identified regions of the United States where new solar, the focus of the report, will have the greatest decarbonization impact by reducing a similar amount of fossil fuel-producing sources.

The analysis also covers voluntary carbon offset markets that rely on private carbon credit registries such as Verra or Gold Standard. This allows the company to use a methodology for contracting solar projects to offset its carbon footprint from activities other than electricity consumption, such as air travel.

“Our customers are not interested in electricity,” Zapata said. “They want recognition for the environmental impact of electrons flowing into the network. So whether they consider it REC or offset, we are kind of agnostic.”