WorldWide Drilling Resource

47 WorldWide Drilling Resource ® DECEMBER 2014 California Addresses Geothermal Heat Pumps Adapted from Information by the Geothermal Exchange Organization Earlier this year, the California Energy Commission (CEC) released a report pro- viding an overview of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) and barriers faced by the industry. The staff paper, Geothermal Heat Pump and Ground Loop Technologies, also proposed solutions to those barriers. The CEC Staff Paper covers topics including California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and addressed some of the barriers the industry faces. Industry officials mentioned different obstacles in the broad use of GHP sys- tems such as local permitting and reg- ulatory issues (especially for drilling and boreholes) and up-front cost issues. One of the first issues discussed was the fact the efficiency of GHPs is not adequately represented in T24 (Title 24 of California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards) compliance modeling prac- tices. This causes projects to be dis- qualified for utility rebates. The industry suggested the state develop an alterna- tive calculation method to estimate GHP energy consumption for better compari- son to standard heating and cooling sys- tems. The CEC disagreed and stated developing standards is an industry responsibility under internal regulations. Another issue pertained to boreholes and water wells. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) regulations regarding boreholes for geothermal ground loop heat exchangers were designed for water wells. The overly stringent regulations are based on rules proposed in 1999. This creates local permitting inconsistencies and excessive fees. The industry recom- mended that the DWR update the regu- lations to recognize the difference between water wells and geothermal boreholes; consistent fee schedules for permitting; and a comprehensive approach to per- mitting and fees. The next barrier mentioned was California’s tiered electricity rate struc- ture, which penalizes all-electric GHP systems. Although adding new load to a building raises power costs, it is still re- ducing fossil fuel use. The industry pro- posed a special tiered rate for GHPs. Those in the GHP industry continue to ask for GHPs to be recognized as a re- newable resource, so they are eligible for Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) credits. However, the CEC staff dis- agreed, stating even though GHPs re- duce power consumption, since they do not generate electricity, they are not eligible for the credits. The final point addressed concerned the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of GHPs, which the industry feels are not adequately represented in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) cap-and- trade program. CARB claims GHPs already receive adequate incentives within the program. Geothermal Exchange Organization President and CEO Doug Dougherty stated, “The CEC Staff Report is signif- icant progress for GHPs in California. It is an excellent first step toward solution of a number of problems faced by the in- dustry, and an opportunity to craft a regu- latory environment more conducive to increased installation of GHPs statewide.”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