Category Archives: Climate

Electric Utilities – An Industry In Transition

By | Bio | Published: July 11, 2012

The recent merger of Duke Energy and Progress Energy represents yet another turning point for the electric utility sector, with significant implications for public health and the environment.  Duke’s six-state footprint – Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina and South Carolina – offers it an opportunity to lead the way on clean energy deployment.  The question is: Will the new Duke Energy – now the largest utility in the country – harness its size and scale to accelerate investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, or stay anchored to the past?  EDF’s partnerships with Wal-Mart, FedEx and McDonalds have shown that when large companies are motivated, they are a powerful force for change.  But change doesn’t come easily.  It requires vision, leadership and a constant willingness to innovate.

This is true not just for Duke Energy, but for electric utilities around the country.  Over the past two years, four of the five largest investor-owned utilities have experienced a merger or change in the CEO role – AEP, Duke, Exelon and Southern Co.  The steps taken by these companies and their leadership will have a profound impact on our antiquated electric utility grid, human health and the environment.  The most visionary utility companies will do three things exceedingly well: 

1.       Get out ahead of environmental regulation

In 2002, Duke Energy supported efforts to tackle power plant pollution in North Carolina by supporting the “Clean Smokestacks Act.”  Xcel Energy followed a similar model in Colorado and endorsed the “Clean Air Clean Jobs Act.”  These landmark laws significantly accelerated clean-up of the dirtiest power plants in those two states and made it possible for the utilities to recover the costs of their investments.  It also enabled Duke and Excel to take early steps to modernize their fleets and prepare for future federal clean air requirements.  As a result of early actions, both companies are well-positioned for EPA’s recent Clean Air Rules – unlike the utility giant AEP, which continues to delay critical human health protections.  The world’s most successful companies skate to where the puck is headed, not to where it is, and are more competitive as a result.

2.       Treat efficiency and smart grid investments as new revenue centers, not side projects

The fact is that most electric utilities still see energy efficiency investments as side projects separate from their core business – generating power.  Without state building codes or energy efficiency standards in place, utility investment in energy efficiency remains low.  The reason is simple.  Even in states with decoupled rate structures in place, building nuclear plants is more profitable than energy efficiency projects.  Large generating plants require a large investment with a guaranteed rate of return over a long project lifetime.  In comparison, energy efficiency projects are generally small, often have an uncertain return and a short project life.  EDF is working with leading energy companies and regulators to craft new incentive models that make efficiency investments attractive, but utility companies must be willing to fundamentally alter their business models.      

3.       See competition as opportunity

Even in highly regulated markets, new market entrants and competitors are beginning to change the face of utilities with strong monopoly power.  The costs of solar panels have dropped by over a third in the past few years, making solar energy cost competitive with retail electricity prices in many parts of the country.  Companies like SolarCity are even financing and then leasing solar systems to home owners, enabling cash-strapped customers to reduce their dependence on the grid.  Hundreds of companies now exist to help all kinds of customers reduce their energy bills and dependence on electric utilities.  (I should know – I just insulated my attic and crawl space – and am already benefitting from lower electric bills.) 

Utility companies that help bring energy efficiency and renewable energy to market can retain ownership of environmental attributes (like renewable energy credits) and earn new revenue streams.  Otherwise, those benefits are likely to go to third parties or customers.  Smart utilities recognize the threat that this small, yet growing base of companies provides to their business model, and aim to bring technologies and services to market faster than new competitors.  Rather than trying to delay the inevitable, savvy utility leaders make their companies part of the solution – and profit from doing so.  Companies like San Antonio’s CPS Energy are making this idea a reality through partnerships with a wide range of service providers.

The next generation of electric utilities and their leaders must run their businesses differently than their predecessors or risk being left behind.  Just like the once monopoly-oriented telecom industry, those companies that are willing to adapt and transition to this new energy paradigm will prosper and be well rewarded.

Also posted in Energy Efficiency, North Carolina, Smart Grid, Utilities | Tagged | Comments closed

Do Shale Gas Activities Play A Role In Rising Ozone Levels?

By | Bio | Published: July 10, 2012

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Texas Clean Air Matters Blog.

Source: AFP

As we continue seeking relief from rising temperatures this month, it’s also time to be on the watch for ozone alerts. The annual Texas smog season – April 1 through October – already appears to be in full swing this year with numerous counties around the state exceeding health-based ozone concentrations many times since March.

Just last week, the Houston Chronicle highlighted the magnitude of ozone exceedances that the area hasn’t seen since 2003. Additionally, the month of May was the nation’s “smoggiest” in the past five years according to a recent report released by Clean Air Watch. Texas ranked second, surpassed only by California, for the most Code Red and Code Orange days so far in 2012, with 18 days and 27 days respectively.

Ozone-forming pollution is emitted by cars, refineries and various industrial plants. As more Texans begin to see shale gas drilling rigs pop up around them, many are asking the question: Could emissions from natural gas and oil operations significantly contribute to ground-level ozone? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

The Role of Natural Gas and Oil in Rising Ozone Levels

While burning natural gas produces less smog-forming pollution than coal combustion but more than renewable energy generation, much of the equipment used in the drilling, production, processing and transporting of natural gas and oil produces significant amounts of such pollution. This equipment releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which combine in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone or “smog.” According to the state of Colorado, natural gas and oil operations were the largest source of ozone-forming pollution, VOCs and NOx in 2008.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has reported that storage tanks used in the exploration and production of natural gas and oil are the largest source of VOCs in the Barnett Shale. Recently, there have been additional concerns that San Antonio may not meet federal ozone standards due to Eagle Ford Shale development. Peter Bella, natural resources director at the Alamo Area Council of Governments, told the Houston Chronicle that the city is “right on the edge of nonattainment.”

Ozone concentrations comparable to those recorded in some of the most heavily polluted U.S. cities have been measured in rural parts of Wyoming and Utah, where little other industrial activity occurs:

It’s important to note, however, that ozone monitoring does not exist in many oil and gas development areas, so we don’t know the full extent of the potential problem. For instance, though the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has committed to start monitoring in the Eagle Ford, there is not currently sufficient monitoring to characterize ozone problems in the area.

Protection of Human Health

As natural gas and oil development expands into new regions, adverse air impacts are likely to follow, absent sufficient emissions controls. It is crucial for states to have strong standards in place, especially for a state such as Texas, which experienced exponential production increases in a short period time. The Eagle Ford Shale alone saw a 432 percent increase in natural gas production from 2010 to 2011.

We are happy to report that EPA recently finalized clean air measures that will serve as an important first step in reducing harmful pollution discharged from a variety of oil and natural gas activities. In fact, last month, EDF President Fred Krupp testified before the U.S. Senate in support of these new clean air standards, which will result in significant reductions in smog-forming pollutants and hazardous air pollutants like benzene, a known carcinogen. As a co-benefit, the standards will also reduce methane, a potent climate forcer.

In his testimony, he said “these common sense measures are a win-win: they reduce pollution, conserve valuable domestic energy resources, and in some cases, actually save producers money.” He added that it was “critical that we build on these clean air measures if our nation is to fulfill the President’s promise in his State of the Union to develop natural gas without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

While mounting evidence continues to link natural gas drilling with rising ozone levels, it is important to remember why we should care in the first place:

  • Ozone has been linked to a host of maladies, including premature mortality, heart failure, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes among children and adults with pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma and inflammation of the lung, and possible long-term damage to the lungs.
  • Children, the elderly, and people with existing respiratory conditions are the most at risk from ozone pollution.
  • Ozone also damages crops and ecosystems. Ozone is one of the most phytotoxic air pollutants – causing damage to vegetation in national parks and wilderness areas, especially in mountain regions and to valuable crops.
  • Ozone pollution also contributes to climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ozone is the third-largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide and methane.

In the end, we’re talking about the protection of human health as well as our entire planet. Continue to visit this blog for updates on rising ozone levels in our state, as well as other vital information related to Texas air quality.

Also posted in EPA, Health, Natural Gas, Texas | Tagged | Comments closed

Saving Lives By Upgrading Buildings

By | Bio | Published: June 13, 2012

NYC Government, Private Sector and Civic Groups Collaborate to Cut NYC’s Soot Pollution from Heating Oil 50% by 2013

At a press conference in the Bronx today, EDF stood with leaders in government, finance and real estate to launch an unprecedented partnership to upgrade thousands of buildings in New York City to clean heating fuel and greater efficiency, with the goal of cutting soot pollution in the most polluted neighborhoods.

EDF President Fred Krupp said “The heating oils used in one percent of New York City buildings create more soot pollution than all the cars and trucks in the City combined – that’s why upgrading these buildings to cleaner heating fuel is the single largest step New Yorkers can take to solve local air pollution.”

This project can only set such ambitious goals – and win – because the right stakeholders are at the table to get it done.  Everyone is doing their part: 

  • Government is setting background regulations in a way that gives buildings flexibility on how to achieve the pollution reductions;
  • Real estate leaders (from supers to landlords and managers) are “doing the math” for their buildings to find the most cost-effective path to solutions that both cut heating costs and reduce pollution;
  • Utilities and fuel providers are expanding their services to deliver a wider range of cleaner fuels — from low-sulfur oil to biodiesel and natural gas to energy efficiency upgrades; 
  • Banks , entrepreneurs and local government are stepping up to provide financing to buildings that need it in order to swap equipment that can handle the cleaner fuels; and
  • EDF (and other non-profits) are organizing reams of data to be actionable by government and the private sector, doing outreach at the community level and making the health and business case.

In fact, today’s announcement puts almost $100 million on the table to help buildings take advantage of clean fuels and technologies.  This financing, made possible by  JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, Hudson Valley Bank, the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation, and the Community Preservation Corporation, will target low- and moderate- income buildings.

Leading up to this announcement, this teamwork has already resulted in 450 buildings upgraded, even before the launch.  It’s one of the largest clean energy projects for buildings anywhere.  We expect over a thousand more by the end of the year; and by targeting the most polluting buildings, we will cut pollution from heating oil in half by the end of next year.

Buildings from the legendary Beresford on Central Park West, to St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx are on track.  I believe that this collaboration is a powerful model for cities around the world.  By bringing together government, real estate, finance, utilities, advocates and community leaders, we’re finding practical solutions that work for health, for the planet and for today’s economy.

As New Yorkers, 80% of our carbon footprint is the result of the energy used in our buildings.  Mega-cities around the world are huge ecosystems of buildings: imagine if we could take this model of collaboration to scale, across the U.S. and the world.  Next week, leaders are gathering in Rio to work on global solutions to help save the planet.  I hope they look to what we’ve accomplished, by working together, here in New York City.

For more information about Clean Heat, see NYC Clean Heat’s webpage and EDF’s website describing the background and progress so far.

Also posted in Energy Efficiency, New York | Tagged | Comments closed

Guest Blog: The Devil In The Design – Energy And Climate Policy Design Matters More Than You Might Think

By | Published: April 23, 2012

By: Guest Blogger Joe Indvik, ICF International

Policy design matters. But all too often, this notion is ignored by political pundits and belittled by policymakers in favor of flashy claims about the morality of a policy type. Like the latest sports car, a policy is usually touted as either a gem or a dud based on its superficial image, with only marginal public interest in looking at what’s actually under the hood. On the contrary, data-driven analysis of the inner workings of policy design will be the key to smart solutions on the road ahead for climate and energy policy the U.S.

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill of 2009 is a prime example. Claims about this former centerpiece of the American climate policy debate ran the gamut of dramatic generalization. They ranged from accusations of a job-killing socialist scheme that “would hurt families, business and farmers—basically anyone who drives a car and flips a light switch” to claims from hopeful environmentalists that any cap would be better than nothing.  Discussion on the actual design of the bill was all but absent from the limelight.  Energy policy discourse is often dominated by these combative back-and-forths, which focus on oversimplified notions of whether a policy would be good for the country while glossing over the practical nuances that make all the difference.

The Data Tells a Different Story

Some of my recent research provides ammunition for those who insist the devil is in the details.  I recently teamed up with two colleagues from Harvard University and the German Institute for Economic Research to examine the effectiveness of feed-in tariffs (FIT), a policy widely adopted by European countries.  A FIT is a type of renewable electricity subsidy that values renewable energy higher than fossil fuels, increasing the price received by energy producers when they sell electricity back to the grid.  We wanted to know:  Have feed-in tariffs actually increased renewable electricity generation in Europe, as intended? Armed with this simple premise and some statistical models, we set out to do the first rigorous analysis of whether this popular but controversial policy has really worked at the macro level. We emerged with some surprising insights that may prove crucial as the U.S. develops its climate and energy policy in the coming years.

Our first analysis revealed a startling conclusion. Countries with a FIT install more wind power each year, as expected, but countries with a FIT for solar photovoltaics do not appear to install more solar capacity at all. In other words, this result implies that European FIT policies for solar power have been an abject failure on the whole. But it occurred to us that there was a massive problem with this approach: It treats all FIT policies as equal. In reality, tariffs can (and do) have drastically different structures and operate in diverse markets. This creates very different incentives for renewable energy deployment in different times and places. Ultimately, it throws our first analysis out the window.

So we took a step back. Instead of looking at the issue from the pundit perspective, we put ourselves in the shoes of the real drivers of renewable energy deployment: investors. Investors are concerned with policy only to the extent that it improves the business case for renewables—i.e. increases their return on investment (ROI). So we created a new variable to represent the ROI provided by each tariff and ran one final test. The results were, again, striking. Whereas countries with a FIT for solar do not necessarily install more solar capacity, countries with a FIT that significantly increases the ROI on solar investments install much more solar capacity. In other words, simply having a FIT means nothing; designing a FIT that intelligently works with existing market conditions to produce a favorable investment environment means everything.

Time for a Tune-Up

What does this imply for the climate and energy policy debate in the U.S.? It shows that not all policies are created equal, and that the differences between policies are actually more important than the presence of a policy in the first place. It also teaches us we have much to learn.

The next few years will be a dynamic and challenging time for energy policy in the U.S. Though only a few U.S. states currently have a FIT, many are considering following Europe’s lead. Also, a national climate bill or set of bills is likely to emerge as a new battleground for debate over the proper response to climate change. Rather than descend into ideological gridlock, we can use data-driven analysis of existing policies as a powerful tool to customize and optimize our approach in the U.S. How large must a FIT be set to be effective? At what size does a tariff become overkill, wasting taxpayer money? Do producers prefer large tariffs that last only a few years or smaller tariffs that support generation for decades? More importantly, is a FIT even the best choice for a given state, or would the populace’s goals be better served by a renewable portfolio standard or tax break instead?  How does the best policy choice change in regions with different production costs, electricity prices, and market structures?  We can make progress toward answering these questions by stepping back from the political melee, using quantitative analysis to take a look under the hood of a policy type, and examining what really makes it tick.

As we move forward, it is exciting to think that lawmakers can glean insights from policy successes (and failures) around the world in increasingly sophisticated ways. Though researchers have only scratched the surface of this potential, we would do well keep in mind the lessons already learned from our analysis and others like it.  Policy design matters—and in some cases, it is the only thing that matters.

Author:  Joe Indvik is consultant in the Energy, Environment, and Transportation group at ICF International in Washington, DC.  He holds a degree in Economics and Environmental Studies from Dartmouth College.  His academic research is focused on using the tools of quantitative analysis to make climate and energy policies smarter.

Also posted in Renewable Energy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

General Motors Reposts EDF, Revokes The Heartland Institute

By | Published: April 9, 2012

(Source: www.inhabitat.com)

Did EDF’s own Jamie Fine and Colin Meehan have a little influence on General Motors (GM)? Perhaps? Just a few days after GM reposted on their website a blog written by Jamie and Colin on the EDF Energy Exchange explaining the Chevy Volt’s brief production suspension and emphasizing it is not a reason to worry about the future of electric vehicles (EVs), GM decides to change course on climate change. Whereas once they were a denier by proxy, they have now seen the light. On Friday, GM announced they are pulling funding from the climate-denial group the Heartland Institute, an industry front group with contributors like Charles Koch and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This announcement came after GM’s CEO Dan Akerson gave a speech last month stating that they are operating under the assumption that climate change is happening. This new messaging for GM is now consistent with their advances in alternative auto technologies such as the Volt. It would be difficult for many consumers to choose the Volt while wondering why GM takes those dollars – $45,000 over the last 3 years including 2012 – and funds active climate deniers like the Heartland Institute.

As we told you a few weeks ago, the recent pause in production of the Volt is not a reason to worry. Despite not reaching their rather optimistic sales projections, the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are actually beating the sales history of their hybrid cousins. When the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight were offered as the first commercially available hybrids in 2000, only 9,350 cars were sold. The Prius is now among the best selling cars in the U.S. with over 2 million vehicles on the road. Meanwhile just last Friday, GM announced that record Volt sales in March are reportedly leading them to consider ramping up production. Change takes time and if the Volt is already outpacing its hybrid competitors, we can potentially expect millions of Volts on the road in the next decade. But you wouldn’t believe that if you listened to the naysayers.

Maybe after being on the receiving end of faux alarmists – who are all too excited to write the obituary for “Government Motors” and a fossil free future – GM is rethinking its support for groups that ignore the truth and distort facts just the same.

Also posted in Electric Vehicles | Comments closed

Strong Standards Are Needed To Protect Human Health From Harmful Air Pollution Emitted From Oil And Gas Activities

By | Published: March 30, 2012

Update: Please note that the EPA is now due to finalize the national emission standards for oil and gas activities by Tuesday, April 17.

On April 3, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize national emission standards to limit some of the harmful air pollutants discharged from a variety of oil and gas activities.   As Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has noted in past blogs, leaks, venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas activities contribute to ground-level ozone ("smog") and toxic air pollution.  As proposed, EPA's standards would reduce volatile organic compounds that contribute to smog by 25% and hazardous air pollutants by 30%, through the implementation of proven and highly cost-effective practices and technologies. 

Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities Linked to Unhealthy Levels of Ozone "Smog" Pollution

Extensive oil and gas development in parts of rural Wyoming and Utah, where little other industrial activity occurs, has led to dangerous ozone levels, higher than those recorded in some of the most heavily polluted cities. Last year, families in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin suffered over forty days in which ozone concentrations exceeded the current health standard.  In Utah’s Uintah basin, residents experienced twice this number of unhealthy ozone days, with one monitor located in Ouray recording forty exceedances alone.

In 2009 then Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal requested EPA designate counties within the Upper Green River Basin as out of attainment with the current ozone health standard explaining the link between natural gas emissions and the serious ozone problems: 

"The State of Wyoming is also challenged by the need to reduce emissions from the natural gas industry which has not traditionally been regulated for ozone nonattainment problems….Therefore, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) has already identified the sources that require controls such as drill rigs, pneumatic pumps, dehydration units and small heaters."

EPA  in turn concluded “[t]he [Wyoming] AQD’s analysis provided with its recommendation shows that elevated ozone at the Boulder monitor is primarily due to local emissions from oil and gas development activities: drilling, production, storage, transport and treating of oil and natural gas.”

In Colorado and Texas, smog-forming emissions from the oil and gas industry have exceeded other major sources of pollution such as vehicles.   In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concluded that the smog-forming emissions from oil and gas operations exceeded vehicle emissions for the entire state.  Similarly, a 2009 study found that summertime emissions of smog-forming pollutants from oil and gas sources in the Barnett Shale were roughly comparable to emissions from all of the motor vehicles in the Dallas Fort-Worth area.

Oil and Gas Activities Emit Benzene-A Known Carcinogen-and other Air Toxics

Venting, flaring and equipment leaks also emit hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, including hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde and benzene into the environment.  Elevated levels of benzene have been detected near gas production sites in Texas and Colorado. In 2010 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) measured acute concentrations of benzene that exceeded the state’s health-based risk levels at two exploration and production sites in the Barnett Shale in Texas. Research based on air samples taken from oil and gas sites in the Piceance Basin in Colorado in 2008 determined that emissions from well completions, dehydration units, and condensate tanks posed an elevated cancer risk to nearby residents. Similarly, atmospheric measurements collected by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that “oil and gas operations in the DJB (Denver-Julesburg Basin) could be the largest source of C6H6 (benzene) in Weld County.”

As oil and gas development continues to expand across the country, strong, national clean air standards are essential to protect public health.  EPA’s standards, which build on clean air measures already in place in states with extensive oil and gas activities, such as Colorado and Wyoming, are an important first step in strengthening clean air protections for human health and the environment.

Also posted in Natural Gas, Oil, Washington, DC | Comments closed

National Clean Air Standards For The Oil And Gas Industry Provide A Trifecta

By | Published: March 20, 2012

By: Peter Zalzal, EDF Staff Attorney, Climate & Air

Rigorous National Clean Air Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry are Needed to Protect the Health of Americans and our Communities

On April 3rd, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize critically important standards to reduce harmful air pollution from oil and gas activities.  These standards are a trifecta: they protect human health and the environment, reduce waste of an important domestic energy source and save industry money through sales of recovered natural gas product.  For too long the industry has operated under insufficient, outdated standards that fail to protect Americans from the dangerous air pollution produced by oil and gas activities.

EPA’s proposed emission standards, which require companies to implement more efficient practices and technologies, will provide much-needed protections for human health and the environment and prevent extensive waste of a domestic energy resource.  In fact, these proposed measures will save approximately 180 billion cubic feet of natural gas, comparable to the amount of gas needed to provide heat to 2.7 million American homes for a year.    

Oil and gas facilities contribute to high levels of toxic air contaminants, ground-level ozone ("smog") and methane, a potent greenhouse gas.  Ground-level ozone has been linked to serious respiratory illnesses, including asthma in children and premature death.  High levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, have been detected at locations in Texas and Colorado. 

Major public health groups including the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have urged EPA to finalize rigorous emission standards.

States with Strong Clean Air Standards Have Had Strong Growth in Oil and Gas Activities

Colorado and Wyoming have long carried out clean air protections similar to those now proposed by EPA.  Environmental Defense Fund evaluated key oil and gas economic indicators — operational rotary rig counts, producing natural gas wells and natural gas gross withdrawals — in Wyoming and Colorado and compared those with overall national data as well as data for other key oil and gas producing states. 

Between 2000 and 2009, both Wyoming and Colorado had the highest annual growth rates for gross withdrawals and the highest average annual growth in producing gas wells as compared to other major gas-producing states with less protective clean air standards on the books.  In short, both Wyoming and Colorado have had strong growth in oil and gas activity while important clean air standards have been in place.

Also posted in Natural Gas, Oil | Tagged , , | Comments closed

Clean Energy And The 2013 Budget Proposal

By | Published: February 15, 2012

Source: EcoWatch

In his State of the Union Address last month, President Obama made energy issues a focal point. Taking a clear stance, he said that it was time to “end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising.”  With this statement, President Obama is addressing the reality that government support for new energy sources is the lowest it has been in any point in U.S. history, according to a report by DBL investors.  “During the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget.  By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one tenth of one percent of federal spending.”

Going further in addressing climate change the President said, "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here's the thing.  Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation."

On Monday he unveiled his budget proposal for FY 2013.  So, how does it hold up to the goals of his speech with regards to a clean energy future?

The Good News:

-       The world’s largest energy consumer, the Department of Defense (DOD), would receive approximately $1 billion for energy conservation efforts. This would further the DOD’s increasing commitment to renewable energy which now makes up 8.5 percent of its energy production and procurement.

-       With a 3.2 percent increase from the year before, the budget proposes $27.2 billion for the Department of Energy. Of that:

  • Research and development for energy efficiency, advanced vehicles and biofuels would get $2.3 billion
  • Renewable energy sources will get a $522 million increase and an additional $174 million for a revamped industrial technology-advanced manufacturing program.
  • $12 million would be directed towards multi-year research investments in safer natural gas infrastructure in order to reduce risks associated with hydraulic fracturing in shale formations.
  • Furthermore, pipeline safety would receive a 70 percent, $64 million, increase.
  • This 3.2 percent increase comes just as a report vindicates the DOE loan program, confirming that the “overall loan portfolio as a whole is expected to perform well and holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when they designed and funded the program.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu states that, “we have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed.  But the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time and with about $8 billion in interest — while supporting a total of 60,000 American jobs and helping us compete for a rapidly growing global industry.”

The Bad News: 

-       Seeming to cave to current attacks, the fiscal 2013 budget proposes stifling cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

  • Reducing current agency funding levels by $105 million, the EPA is slated to receive $8.3 billion. This would make for the first time since 1994 that the agency’s budget was cut for three consecutive years.

-       Counterproductive cuts to USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service:

  • Proposed cuts for Farm Bill conservation programs would be about $600 million.
  • Already Congress has cut conservation funding by $2.8 billion over the last five years, representing 81 percent of the nearly $3.5 billion in Farm Bill spending cuts over that time period(FY 2008-2012).

Despite some disappointment, overall we at EDF are pleased that the President chose to not only speak to the importance of a clean energy future but that his budget reflects this as well.

Elgie Holstein, our senior director for strategic planning here at EDF and a former associate director of the Office of Management and Budget for Natural Resources, Energy and Science, sums it up well, “despite some flaws, the president’s budget is a big net plus for the environment, and we urge Congress to embrace the positive aspects of it.” That latter part will be the true challenge.

Vice president of EDF’s Energy Program, Jim Marston continues: “The fact is: clean energy and responsible environmental policy make good economic policy as well because they create jobs, while cutting energy and medical bills for American families. Look at it this way:  environmental conservation is cheaper than environmental cleanup, just like preventive medicine is cheaper than emergency room treatment. We applaud the President’s support of job-creating, clean energy programs.”

The President understands that getting our energy future on the right path is an essential foundation that our country needs to be competitive, provide jobs and protect our health and environment.

Also posted in Energy Efficiency, Natural Gas, Renewable Energy, Washington, DC | Comments closed

A Texas Coalition for Water, Energy and Economic Security Briefing: The Drought Threatens Texas’ Power

By | Bio | Published: February 13, 2012

(Source: www.businessinsider.com)

This commentary was originally posted on the Texas Clean Air Matters Blog.

On Thursday, February 2, the Texas Coalition for Water, Energy and Economic Security (TCWEES), which includes Environmental Defense Fund and other stakeholders in the environmental and business community, held a legislative briefing discussing the impact that the drought could have on power in Texas. This is the first of a series of TCWEES-hosted, educational events focused on energy efficiency that will be held around the state during the legislative interim.

The speakers at the briefing included:

  • Dr. John Nielson-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist and Regents Professor of Atmospheric Science at Texas A&M University
  • Dr. Carey King, Research Associate at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the Bureau of Economic Geology at University of Texas at Austin
  • Mark Armentrout, President and CEO of Texas Technology Partners; former chair of ERCOT
  • Cris Eugster, EVP and Chief Sustainability Officer for CPS Energy (San Antonio)
  • Kevin Tuerff, Principal and President of EnviroMedia

In 2011, Texas experienced record heat and drought and the electric grid was stressed as a result. Though the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) took a proactive approach to dealing with the crisis, the potential still remains for economic loss caused by electric generation outages related to heat and drought. The drought is predicted to continue and action is needed to protect Texas’ power and economic viability. Given that it can provide the same amount of service while using less electricity, energy efficiency should be a significant part of the solution. Energy efficiency reduces waste, electric bills, emissions and water use needed for electric generation.

During the briefing, Dr. John Nielson-Gammon brought up the recent rain in Texas. He said that while the rain is great for taking people’s mind off the drought, it is not useful for setting us up for the summer of 2012 because it’s too little too late for our current situation. He added that climate change is an important enough factor in the drought that it must be considered in long-term water planning.

(Source: www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu)

Texas State Representative Donna Howard was in attendance and she posed a question about better coordination between state agencies. Though there is some coordination, there is no actual coordinated plan among and between state agencies to be thoughtful about planning for Texas’ future water and energy needs. Dr. Carey King pointed out that both the Texas Water and Development Board and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality work on water issues, but it isn’t clear how power plants fit into water priorities. He stated that we don’t have an answer and that we need a better understanding of the breadth and depth of water issues.

The key takeaways from this briefing are that water and power are inextricably linked and the stress that the drought has had, and will continue to have, on our ecosystems and electric systems is a serious concern. This is not something that will go away as the climate will continue to change. Cleaner energy sources and greater energy efficiency will cut carbon pollution and help stabilize the climate, protecting our land, water, air and health. We need to find solutions now.

Also posted in Texas, Water | Comments closed

Top 10 Clean Energy Stories Of 2011

By | Published: January 5, 2012

Although we have said goodbye to 2011, the advances and achievements in clean energy last year have propelled us into 2012 and will only become more widespread and successful with each passing year. As Steven Lacey at Climate Progress points out in his “Top 10 Clean Energy Stories of 2011”, it was an “odd” year for the clean energy sector, but with great successes. While public demand favors a move to a clean energy economy and environmental sustainability necessitates it, some politicians and their corporate cronies are doing their best to demonize and stall the inevitable leap forward. The reasons why there is obstruction are obvious but it still is a pretty bad calculation and ultimately they are on the wrong side of history. My colleague Colin Meehan responded just a few weeks ago to Grover Norquist’s ill-informed rant against renewable energy. But once we break through the noise and distraction, the reality of what the future holds becomes encouraging. While deniers love to isolate the Solyndra scandal as their defining proof that we must keep and accelerate fossil fuels, it hardly defines the activity and achievements on the ground. In fact, as Lacey articulates, there are much better parameters to judge the new energy revolution:

1.     Renewable Power Investments Top Fossil Fuels for First Time

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal.” And they project that renewable energy investments will “double over the next eight years and reach $395 billion per year.”

2.     Cost Reductions Make Solar PV Competitive

While complete grid parity will be more of a phased process than a singular result, according to Tom Dinwood, CTO of SunPower, Dan Shugar, CEO of Solaria, and Adam Browning, Executive Director of Vote Solar Initiative, “solar PV is no longer a fringe, cost-prohibitive technology, but rather, a near-commodity that is quickly becoming competitive with nuclear, natural gas, and soon coal.”  Solar power is quickly becoming more than cute.

3.      Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Is A Success

As the aforementioned deniers (in this case the Koch Brothers front group Americans for Prosperity) cried wolf about the RGGI, claiming it would “inflate bills 90% in New Jersey,” the reality of the situation was much different –“RGGI generates greater economic growth in every one of the 10 states that participate than would occur without a carbon price.” This is from a new report, which found that “America’s first mandatory, market-based carbon cap and trade system added $1.6 billion in value to the economies of participating states, set the stage for $1.1 billion in ratepayer savings, and created 16,000 jobs in its first three years of implementation.

4.     Pension Funds & Large Companies Invest Big in Energy Efficiency

Further proving you can bet on energy efficiency projects to pay off, two of the largest US pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTERS announced in September they would invest $1 billion toward efficiency projects. In June, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers announced over $150 million in similar investments, which utilize product retrofits that have over 90 percent of the content made right here in the USA. “If we retrofitted just 40 percent of the nation’s residential and commercial building stock, we would mobilize a massive amount of domestic labor— more than half a million (625,000) sustained full time jobs over a decade. This would generate as much as $64 billion per year in cost savings for U.S. energy ratepayers. That’s means $300 to $1,200 in savings for individual families.” These are wise investments that “out-perform investments in new oil and gas exploration as a form of job creation or economic stimulus by a factor of 3-to-1.”

5.     Geothermal Potential is Massive

Texas’ own SMU recently released a map that shows how much “potential [geothermal] energy is locked beneath America.” While there is still a lot of ground to cover, so to speak, in realizing this resource, we at least know that under our feet lies a huge source of impending power.

6.     Green Jobs Reach 2.7 Million

While much of the economy has declined and stagnated over the last few years, green jobs have actually increased, with the “clean economy growing by 8.3% from 2008-2009 — almost double what the overall economy grew during those years.”  Not only is this providing jobs in the sectors of energy, transport, building, etc. they are better paying jobs as well at “$7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy.”

7.     Google Phases Out Clean Energy R&D in Favor of Deployment

(credit: www.thinkprogress.org)

While it was reported that Google was abandoning renewables, the media failed to accurately depict the situation. The truth is that Google is “now shifting its focus to project financing rather than R&D, citing the need for more sophisticated research on CSP technologies beyond Google’s scope, and the rapidly changing economics of solar PV switched.” This includes investing more than $850 million in renewable technologies.

8.    America is a $1.9 Billion Exporter of Solar Products

Despite the notion that China is outperforming the U.S. in this field, a report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association found that the U.S. has a $247 million trade surplus with China.  Here is a great chartto illustrate:

9.     What Free Market? Subsidies Have Always Been a Big Part of Energy Industry, New Report Shows

This one is pretty self explanatory and frankly, states the obvious. I don’t think we needed a study to tell us that the fossil fuels lobby on Capitol Hill has a pretty good ROI. But it’s always nice to have backup. There is really no clearer depiction of hypocrisy than with the false outrage, served with a little red herring on the side, associated with the Solyndra scandal (as mentioned above).  While railing against subsidies for clean energy, these same politicians are not only all too willing to subsidize fossil fuels but prior to politicizing it, were keen on renewable energy monies as well.  As Lacey points out, “apparently, many in Congress have forgotten about the last 100 years of government investments in oil, gas and nuclear — all of which have far outpaced investments in renewable energy like solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal and wind.” To be clear, “energy industries have enjoyed a century of federal support. From 1918-2009, the oil and gas industry received $447 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies. Renewable energy sources received $6 billion (adjusted for inflation) for a much shorter period from 1994-2009.  There is a striking divergence in early federal incentives. For example, federal support for the nuclear industry overwhelms other subsidies as a percentage of federal budget, but equally striking is the support for oil and gas which was at least 25% higher than renewables, and in the most extreme years 10x as great.”

10.   Being Anti-Clean Energy is Bad Politics

Despite all the findings listed in this blog, for some reason those with a vested interest in maintaining the fossil fuel polluting status quo just don’t get it! Americans want to be free of fossils and want to embrace the new energy revolution.  According to a poll by the non-partisan Civil Society Institute, “77% of Americans— including 65% of Republicans surveyed — believe ‘the U.S. needs to be a clean energy technology leader and it should invest in the research and domestic manufacturing of wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies.’” And as a segue from number 9 on the list above, the poll found that, “Americans support subsidies for renewable energy over fossil energy 3 to 1. When asked to choose between only subsidizing clean energy or fossil energy, 38% of respondents said they’d choose renewables, while 13% would choose fossils.”

2012 is going to be an intense year. February brings us a leap on the 29th, politicians will be battling each other leading up to November, and then a new sun begins, according to Mayan tradition a month later on December 21st. Let’s hope that the clean energy momentum continues and that the will of the people and the condition of the environment that sustains us all is truly at heart. The future looks so bright!

Also posted in Energy Efficiency, Future of Green, Innovation, Renewable Energy, Solar | Comments closed