Energy Exchange

ANGA’s New Texas Report Serves Up A Heaping Helping Of ‘Number Salad’

The American Natural Gas Association (ANGA) released a paper in March titled “Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth,” to a lot of press, and rightly so.  The paper correctly cites several benefits of using and producing natural gas in Texas: it is produced in-state, has water use and air-quality benefits when compared to coal and helps to fund state and local governments through taxes. 

Unfortunately, the paper also makes some claims that are difficult to take seriously; perhaps the first warning sign should be that while the paper was presented as an economic analysis, the authors have no economic credentials.  Dr. Michael J. Economides, a chemical and biomolecular professor at the University of Houston, and petroleum engineering consultant Philip E. Lewis spend little time worrying about the details in this report, serving up a heaping helping of “number salad.”

For instance, the $7.7 billion “loss” is calculated by projecting the potential use of gas in Texas, if it had followed the national trend, against the actual use.  But in looking at the data, it’s not clear that the Texas fuel mix ever tracked the national fuel mix.  Even more importantly, looking at the authors’ own slides, Texas uses 20% more natural gas in its fuel mix than the nation.  If anything, the national fuel mix is following the trend set long ago by Texas —adding more natural gas and wind, while decreasing coal output.

What might shock the authors is that natural gas consumption in the electric power sector has increased by around 5,000 one thousand cubic feet of gas (MCF) since 2006, 800 MCF in transportation and nearly 10,000 MCF in the industrial sector. 

There are so many misleading statistics and inaccuracies that we could practically write a report on the report, but instead I’ll just focus on one aspect that stands out in particular. 

When it comes to comparing natural gas to coal power, the authors are quick to cite the many local benefits of using natural gas energy produced in Texas: it’s cleaner than coal and creates local jobs and a local tax base.  Wind energy has largely produced the same benefits: local wind power has brought jobs and a growing tax base and population to rural Texas counties that “had seen consistent, significant population losses since 1950.”  On top of the economic development benefits, where natural gas beats coal in reducing pollution, wind energy beats both by reducing pollution basically to zero.  But when it comes to discussing any of these benefits from wind energy in the report, the silence is deafening. 

Natural gas is reshaping our energy landscape.  And, done right—with the proper, mandatory environmental safeguards in place and reduced methane leakage rates—compared to coal plants, natural gas power plants offer other distinct air quality benefits.  It emits less greenhouse gases than coal when combusted and avoids mercury and other dangerous air pollutants that come from coal.

However, the same – and more – can be said about wind energy and Texas’ potential clean energy resources, including solar and geothermal power, among others.  Rather than pitting our local clean energy resources against each other as this report does, we should seek to expand and diversify our clean energy mix, reaping health, environmental, economic and security benefits.

Also posted in Natural Gas, Texas / Read 1 Response

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

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. Read More »

Also posted in Climate / Tagged , , , , , , , | Read 4 Responses

A Triple Bottom Line for the Central Valley: Environment, Economy, Equity

city of fresno sealThis week the Air Resources Board (ARB) held a public workshop in Fresno, California, to gather public input on ways to invest proceeds from California’s cap-and-trade auction.  ARB heard from a wide variety of individuals and organizations with bright ideas on how to spend this money on projects that can lower greenhouse gases (GHG) and maximize the benefit to disadvantaged communities who are the most vulnerable to climate change and pollution impacts.

I represented EDF at the workshop, and an extended version of my public comments follows:

Read More »

Also posted in California, Cap and Trade, Clean Energy, Energy Efficiency, General, State / Comments are closed

Clean Energy And The 2013 Budget Proposal

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 Climate, Energy Efficiency, Natural Gas, Washington, DC / Read 2 Responses

Demand Response: A Key Component In Texas’ Electricity Market. Why Isn’t The State Taking Advantage Of It?

On Monday, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee took up the critical issue of the impact of extreme drought conditions on electric generation capacity and state officials’ plans to respond to those risks.   A number of important issues and policy solutions were raised, from on-bill financing of energy efficiency to renewable energy to send the right ‘market signals’ to incentivize the construction of new power plants.  Public Utility Commission (PUC) Chair Donna Nelson singled out, in particular, the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy goals.  These policies have helped reduce pollution, saved customers money and have the added benefit of reducing our dependence on water for electricity production.

Another important part of the solution discussed was raised by a number of panelists: demand response (aka load management).  The ability of end-use customers to reduce their use of electricity in response to power grid needs or economic signals has helped the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) avoid rolling blackouts and, in other regions of the country, it has helped markets avoid the need for new capacity.  As ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett and PUC Chair Nelson pointed out in their testimony, demand response is a market competitive resource that uses no water and, as such, it may prove to be a valuable resource in view of the state’s record drought. 

The Texas Capacity Crunch – Obstacles and Opportunities
The historic drought of 2010-2011 has put Texas’ conventional power plants at risk, threatening a return of the rolling blackouts caused by extreme winter conditions just a year ago.  State Climatologist, Perry appointee John Nielsen-Gammon says, “Statistically we are more likely to see a third year of drought.” 

At the same time, ERCOT faces a challenging capacity crunch caused largely by “low natural gas prices, an influx of low marginal cost wind power, increased wholesale market efficiencies, low wholesale power prices, tight credit markets” and other issues according to TXU Energy.  With limited ability to invest new capital given the current market conditions, and over 11,000 MW of power dependent on water sources at historically low levels, Texas needs to tap into resources that can be deployed rapidly and require less capital and much less water.

Demand Response – Low Cost, Zero Water Resource
Fortunately Texas has ample resources to meet these needs with demand response.  If allowed to participate fully in Texas’ energy markets as it does in other regions, demand response can benefit customers and increase grid reliability.  Unfortunately Texas continues to lag behind other states and regions, which have seen market-competitive demand response grow rapidly as market barriers have been removed. 

    • The definition of “demand response” is “end-use customers reducing their use of electricity in response to power grid needs or economic signals from a competitive wholesale market.”
    • The potential for cost competitive demand response is tremendous – according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Texas could add as much as 19 GW in capacity by 2019 if we open up our electric market to allow customers to compete alongside generators.

Texas currently is among the lowest states in terms of load management, despite having the highest potential by far according to FERC and the Brattle Group. 

Source: FERC

Why Does Texas Lag the Nation in Demand Response?

  • In 2011, demand response amounted to 9% of the PJM’s (a grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic/Midwest) system peak demand, greatly benefitting customers and improving reliability. 
  • At ERCOT, despite great potential, demand response only amounted to just over 2% of peak demand, limited by unnecessary market barriers. 
  • Texas leads the nation in smart meter deployment, intended by the legislature to “facilitate demand response initiatives.”  Why is ERCOT so far behind?

Market Barriers Prevent Customers from Competing in ERCOT

  • ERCOT’s legacy demand response program is capped at 1150 MW and is effectively limited to large industrials within ancillary services markets.
  • ERCOT’s Emergency Reliability Service is the only program in the market that allows any customer to participate if they qualify.  The program is limited in scope (it can only be called on twice per year) and to date has been unable to reach the original goal of 500 MW.  Despite these limitations, the program helped avoid rolling blackouts last summer.

Source: NERC

Regulators are Focused on Building New Power Plants

  • Instead of looking to all possible solutions, regulators seem focused only on how to get new power plants built.
  • Other grid operators have successfully created programs for smaller commercial and residential customers to compete through aggregation.  In Texas, residential and small commercial customers have been put on the back burner.
  • Despite the PUC’s reluctance to act on other clean energy opportunities, such as the 500 MW non-wind RPS or increasing the energy efficiency standards, it is clear that these programs have been successful in creating clean, “water-proof” power.
  • In the midst of a capacity crunch caused by extreme drought and market structure problems, demand response provides an opportunity to address both by enabling cheaper, water-free capacity by simply opening markets to customers.
Also posted in Energy Efficiency, Grid Modernization, Texas / Tagged | Read 1 Response

Top 10 Clean Energy Stories Of 2011

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 Climate, Energy Efficiency / Read 1 Response