In May 2024, UC Berkeley released its long-awaited Integrated Resource and Activation Plan (IRAP), which outlines the university’s path toward decarbonizing the energy that powers our campus through a “full utility infrastructure transformation”. The IRAP is a plan for implementing the Berkeley Clean Energy Campus initiative (BCEC), which seeks to reduce the university’s current carbon emissions from buildings of about 120,000 tCO2e / year by 85% by 2030.
As an active member of BERC, and having just completed UGBA 193B: Energy and Civilization (a course exploring how our planet can practically shift towards a decarbonized economy), I support the BCEC initiative and believe strongly in our university’s goal to usher in a new, more sustainable era of campus operations. The IRAP report outlines a comprehensive, multifaceted plan for UC Berkeley to accomplish its clean energy ambitions; the rest of this blog post will opine on the major components of the report in the context of the greater mission for UC Berkeley, and the University of California system at-large, to be leaders in sustainability, environmental stewardship, and climate change mitigation.
EHCP is the #1 priority
My support for the BCEC is primarily rooted in the economic comparison between a “business as usual” approach (which entails solely upgrading Berkeley’s natural gas-powered cogeneration plant) and the broader clean energy plan put forth by IRAP. For context, the existing cogeneration plant, located near Haas Pavilion and Stu Gordon Field, provides 90% of the electricity and 100% of the steam needs for Berkeley’s campus, but of course, runs mostly on natural gas, a fossil fuel.
Figure 1. Berkeley's existing natural gas-based cogeneration plant.
This plant is approaching the end of its useful life; the newly proposed Electrified Heating and Cooling Plant (EHCP), to be installed near Hearst Field, presents a viable alternative solution and is the cornerstone of the IRAP. The EHCP will include a “geothermal” component consisting of an underground heat exchange system that will provide heating and cooling for new campus buildings through hot and chilled water.
Figure 2. A side-by-side comparison of UC Berkeley’s current and future energy generation systems.
While the capital costs associated with IRAP’s new clean energy plan exceed those for upgrading the cogeneration plant ($850M vs. $510M), there are other key cost components that favor the clean energy plan. For example, O&M costs tied to the clean energy plan are expected to be less than half of those associated with continuing to operate an outdated cogeneration plant. Moreover, the projected cap-and-trade costs (i.e., costs associated with excess carbon emissions paid to the state of California) and social cost of carbon (the marginal cost to society from each additional ton of CO2 emissions) tied to continuing to operate the cogeneration plant total $850M over 25 years. In all, the IRAP plan will save $670M across a 25-year time horizon, making the proposal economically sound.
Figure 3. Despite a higher initial (capital) cost, IRAP is expected to save the campus $670M over 25 years.
The IRAP is planned across three phases: Phase 1 (2024-28), Phase 2 (2028-30), and Long Term (beyond 2030). In Phase 1, construction begins on the EHCP (including drilling 150 boreholes beneath the plant building, with water-to-water heat pumps providing simultaneous heating and cooling capabilities), buildings and pipes around campus are upgraded for the EHCP, and 15 MW of DERs are installed. In Phase 2, the cogeneration plant is officially decommissioned, and the EHCP is expanded alongside another round of building and pipe upgrades. Long Term involves another EHCP expansion, decommissioning the boilers at the cogeneration plant, and other projects, including 10+ MW of additional DER capacity.
Figure 4. Timeline for the IRAP project.
The cogeneration plant must be turned off on time (but not a moment too early) as Phase 2 begins in 2028, since it needs to continue meeting university energy demand while the EHCP is being built. I believe that the team is making the right decision to wait on decommissioning the boilers (which produce steam for the cogeneration plant) separately, once the EHCP plant capacity expansion is complete, as a part of a comprehensive long-term transition plan. In fact, the boilers are actually being upgraded in the first phase of construction, and won’t be shut down until the end of Phase 2, a year after the cogeneration plant is decommissioned. This is because the boilers are needed to continue producing high-quality steam until the Phase 2 Building Connections have been completed.
Figure 5. Rendering of the Electrified Heating and Cooling Plant (EHCP), provided by AEI.
I am advocating for faculty and project leaders to prioritize the EHCP project above all other project components, including the DERs proposed in the IRAP, which consist of onsite solar, green hydrogen fuel cells, and battery storage. Grid electricity purchased from PG&E can adequately cover additional energy demand as needed during the EHCP’s construction, a simpler solution versus powering the temporary site with DERs. Once the EHCP designs are developed and construction is initiated, Berkeley’s focus can broaden to other IRAP components, including the expansion of distributed solar.
Pumped storage?
One notable exception to my enthusiastic support for BCEC is the proposal to explore a potential pumped storage hydropower plant outlined in the IRAP. This closed-loop plant would act as an alternative or supplement to electrochemical batteries by pumping water to an “upper storage tank during periods of abundant and clean power, and then utilizing a hydropower turbine and gravity to generate additional power as needed during outages or peak hours, while reducing dependence of the utility.” IRAP’s argument is that even with a high initial capital cost, this approach would be cheaper over its lifetime than a battery system of a similar size. I find that, while the concept is sound, the university’s focus should not be on creating an entirely new closed-loop plant on campus, but rather on construction of the selected EHCP plant through Phase 2, plus other long-term IRAP components. Storage can be accounted for in alternate ways, without complicating an already multifaceted project, and battery energy storage systems as alternatives would be cheaper in both the short and medium terms. I recommend revisiting the pumped storage proposal only after other IRAP components are complete.
Potential roadblocks
The main leadership for BCEC is a set of students and faculty, alongside AEI, a consultancy with a proven track record that successfully helped Stanford transition their energy infrastructure in the 2010s. As the project is being developed, the roles and responsibilities of people in leadership positions, including Berkeley’s Chief Sustainability Officer, are changing; in August 2024, Kira Stoll, Berkeley’s CSO, departed, leaving the role in the hands of the Vice Chancellor of Facilities, Sally McGarrahan.
Student advocacy for the project is strong, but will shift over time, since student graduation and turnover means frequent transitions of student-based leadership. Public support for BCEC through mediums like The Daily Cal and streetside promotion can help raise awareness for this vital project for the campus and can serve as an example for other schools and in the future. Through my Energy and Civilization course, I’ve had the chance provide a critical lens into additional roadblocks that could hinder BCEC’s progress:
-
Opposition exists to terminating the cogeneration plant. The opposition comes from the fact that the price of implementation is steeper in the short-term than keeping the old plant intact. It would appear simpler to retain and modify a cogen plant than to completely transform the plant itself.
-
The EHCP blueprints have yet to be finalized for construction.
-
According to Berkeley Associate Professor Dr. Christine Rosen, some in the local real estate industry doubt the future of the project, questioning how the campus will raise the necessary capital to see the BCEC initiative through.
-
Tax incentives and credits from the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) could fall through with the new presidential administration undercutting sustainability-oriented initiatives like this one.
Despite limitations and potential roadblocks, enthusiasm for BCEC from the Berkeley student body is palpable; students are leading a “DeCal” (an optional, student-led course for Berkeley undergrads) this semester about BCEC. It’s not clear whether or not the initiative will ultimately succeed, or how long it will take, but in my view, Berkeley will find a way, just as the campus has with its other massive construction projects like the College of Computing, Data Science, and Society (CDSS) Gateway building. The university is still at the tip of the iceberg in terms of project implementation, and as a student advocate I would like to offer a bold call to action to BCEC leadership for the project to move forward in a sequential fashion, starting with the EHCP (as outlined above).
Figure 6. The Gateway building on UC Berkeley's campus, which will house the new College of Computing, Data Science, and Society (CDSS), and is set to open in 2025.
The IRAP, published last May, states that project construction for the EHCP is scheduled to begin by the end of 2024. As we approach the summer of 2025, we have yet to see fences erected and trucks digging in Hearst Field, and a BCEC representative at a recent teach-in informing the public about the project estimated construction to begin by 2026, two years after the original start date. Despite this slow start, Berkeley must continue to blaze the trail on climate change mitigation for the UC system and universities around the country. We have a chance to make substantial, economically sound changes to our energy infrastructure, and the BCEC project must move forward soon.
Sources:
IRAP (May 2024): https://cleanenergycampus.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/irap_final_06-2024_-_aei_report_version.pdf
The Daily Californian (March 2021): https://www.dailycal.org/weekender/features/uc-berkeley-s-power-plant-at-the-end-of-its-lifetime/article_efa14b27-849f-5688-a5f3-97b31f784333.html
UC Berkeley Capital Strategies: https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/gateway