Is Distributed Energy Resources better than Regionalization?
by Dajia Bergeron on February 23, 2018 - 12:32am
The article “Local Balancing Is the Key to California’s Clean Energy Future. Regionalization Isn’t” by Doug Karpa informs the reader about the state of California’s renewable energy setup. The author recommends using an energy system that will support the state of California in the future. This system would include local energy, modern grid operations and backyards resources. In the article, it is also suggested that distributed energy resources are more recommended than regionalization energy systems. Regionalization would increase carbon emissions and would have a greater chance of breaking because of natural disasters. The state of California would also not be able to make decisions on its own if something was to happen to the pipeline since it goes through many states making it more difficult to make a decision. On the other hand, DER’s would be local in the state of California, therefore making them advantageous in the long run. Even if regionalization is cost-efficient during the short term, DER’s are predicted to be less costly in the long run. For California to become a renewable energy efficient state, it will take a lot of time and it will be hard, but it is the best way according to Karpa in order to attain the state's clean energy goals.
In my opinion, I believe that Karpa is right when it comes to DER’s being more efficient. Regionalization would take many years to construct but would also take a lot of room all around the United States. Since the pipeline will be huge, there are more risks of having something go wrong and would be very time consuming to fix it. The pipeline also produces carbon emissions which defeats the purpose of being a clean state while having DER’s would reduce the carbon emission and also be simpler because only one state would be involved instead of many.